tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 21 15:05:36 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Es Mortuii Salutatem

David Trimboli wrote:
> 
> [email protected] on behalf of Jim LeMaster wrote:
>.....long quote deleted for brevity.......
> > 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.

I chose the zero prefix due to the "we" inside the {maHeghrupbogh} and
the "you" externalized as tlhIH.
> 
> 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?
> 
Probably a case of poor communication, or choice of words - I was unsure
about using tlhIH as a standalone pronoun, independent rather part of
the prefixes.
> > 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. 

You're right there.  I like the meaning, but not the vocalization.
Switching to another line, how about:

qavan! jIHeghlaH 'a jIreylaHHa'!
I salute you! I can die, but I cannot be defeated!

(I am unsure of the jIreylaHHa' construction, but it seemed to me that
to "undo 'I can be defeated'" is more reasonable than jIreylaHbe' "I can
be defeated-not."

However, trying to look back and think, I am not sure of the jIreylaHHa'
as really meaning "I cannot be defeated".  It seems to have shifted in
my head to "I cannot defeat."
Do I need to say: (chereylaHHa') You cannot defeat me! 

Thus making my sentence: jIHeghlaH 'a chereylaHHa'! (I can die, but you
cannot defeat me!)
Not as alliterative, but more correct.(?)

Back to archive top level