tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 20 19:33:01 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: KLBC: Es Mortuii Salutatem

[email protected] on behalf of Jim LeMaster wrote:
> I was going through the archives for the Addams' Family Motto and found
> Capt.Krankor's note about -bogh verbs. His examples were:
> 
> maHeghrupbogh maH --or-- maHeghrupbogh
> "we who are prepared to die"

I'm not at all happy with this.  Krankor and I were never on the list at the 
same time, so I've not seen this before.  The problem with the first is that 
you must accept headless relative clauses as representing noun phrases in and 
of themselves.  I am not so sure I do.  Yes, it was I who found the first 
Okrandian evidence of it, on an isolated file on the third Star Trek: Klingon 
CD, but since this file isn't actually used in the CD (so far as I can tell), 
it's tough to say whether it's "canon."  {maHeghrupbogh maH} is no different 
than {maHeghrupbogh}.

> This is quite close to the old gladiator's salute to the Emporer of Rome
> before combat:
>     "We who are about to die salute you!"

I imagine that was the point . . .

> So, in Klingon:
> 
> tlhIH van maHeghrupbogh      We who are ready to die salute you!

Let's not worry about the {maHeghrupbogh} part just yet.  We need to say "We 
salute you (plural)."

You've chosen the verb {van}.  Now, verbs need prefixes.  Either you've 
forgotten it, or you've chosen one of the zero prefixes.  Let's look at the 
chart on TKD p.33 to see which one we need.

The subject is "we."  The object is "you."  Cross-referencing these on the 
chart gives us the prefix {re-}.  That's a pretty underused prefix.  I have 
trouble remembering it, myself.  All we need to do is stick this onto the 
verb.

tlhIH revan maH.

Of course, we're free to drop unnecessary pronouns; {re-} tells us exactly 
what they must be.

revan.

That's it!  "We salute you" is {revan}.  One word!

Now, to Krankor's "we who are about to die."  Personally, I don't think this 
calls for a relative clause.  I see no reason why we have to cram all of this 
into one sentence.  Observe:

maHeghrup.  revan.
We are ready to die.  We salute you.

> or, if I'm close (not real sure of 'you' as an independent object),

Why wouldn't "you" {tlhIH} be an object?

> a battle cry:
> 
> tlhIH van jIHeghrupbogh!     I, who is prepared to die, salute you!

I don't know, this seems a little cumbersome for a battle cry.  Especially if 
you try to break it into two sentence.  Again, you'll need to add a prefix to 
{van} (different this time) and decide what you want to do about that headless 
relative clause.

I rather see a superior Klingon battle cry as

batlh peHegh!
Die with honor!  (Addressed to mutiple people.)

and, or course,

tlhIngan maH!
We are Klingon!

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97385.3

Back to archive top level