tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 04 21:57:00 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - to paralyze oneself - <roSHa'moH'egh> ??
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC - to paralyze oneself - <roSHa'moH'egh> ??
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 00:58:14 -0400
At 08:43 AM 8/30/96 -0700, Chet Braun wrote:
>I would like to say:
>
>One who is fierce paralyzes his enemy.
>One who is angry paralyzes himself.
>
>jaghDaj roSHa'moH qu'wI'
>roSHa'moH'egh QeHwI'
>
>My question concerns the verb <roSHa'moH>. Is this a verb as is, or is it
>the verb <roSHa'> with the <-moH> suffix? The fact that there doesn't seem
>to be a verb <roSHa'> seems to indicate the former.
You have just hit on a very LONG-standing debate on the list: are seperate
entries the the KD seperate, new words, or, if they appear to have a suffix
on them, are they really verb+suffix, even if there is no really root verb?
The biggest cause for this debate is <ja'chuq> "to discuss". In English,
"to discuss" is transitive (it takes an object). Unfortunately, -chuq means
"each other". If this is really <ja>+-chuq, then it means "to tell each
other"... which already HAS an object! In fact, if you look on page 36 of
the KD, it says that verbs with -chuq have to have a prefix that has NO
object--which means that there could never be any object on <ja'chuq>...
which kinda defeats the purpose of using the verb in the first place.
All of this could be avoided, of course, if <ja'chuq> is a "seperate word".
Unfortunately, to do THAT, we have to do it for ALL the words in the KD (you
can't just make an exception like that, unless you happen to be Marc Okrand!)...
BUT, we can't do THAT, because of instance like <quvmoH>. If <quvmoH> (in
the addendum) is a seperate, new word into and of itself, despite it's
really obvious similarity to <quv>+-moH, then we would have to say ?quvmoHHa'?.
Check out page 155 of The Klingon Way--"The dishonor of the father dishonors
his sons and their sons for three generations"--it is clearly uses
<quvHa'moH>... so we can't thorw THAT one out... so we can't throw them ALL
out... which leaves us back at our original dillemna...
I don't think this is the only example by far, but it was the only one I
could actaully lay my hands on the canon...
>If it the latter is true then the type 1 suffix <-'egh> should not be
allowed >following
>the type 4 suffix <-moH>. jIlugh'a'
bIlughba'qu'.
You are absolutely correct... which leads to my only correction of your
grammar: the -'egh MUST come rught after the -Ha'. Yes, this is true even
though we have no base verb ?roS?. We might surmise that ?roSHa'? might
mean "to be paralized", and from that that ?roS? means "to be able to act",
but until we have it from Okrand, we cannot use these stems (they might be
archaic forms, after all...)
A very night concept, well-translate, and well-thought out. Nice and
simple--and "Klingon"!
majQa'!
>qatlho'
qay'be'!
>HetaQ
--tQ
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet
Klingon speaker and net junkie!
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...