tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 21 20:05:57 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:

> > 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.

Klingon doesn't have things internalized and externalized, whatever exactly 
that means.  Saying {maHeghrup} is exactly the same as saying {maHeghrup maH}: 
"We are ready to die."  The only difference is that you're adding a little 
clarification.  Since the prefix is {ma-}, the subject *has* to be {maH}, so 
you don't actually have to say {maH}.  If you do, you're emphasizing the 
pronoun, usually to make a point.  This can be similar to adding {-'e'} to a 
noun, though not as strong, and it only concerns the pronouns.

> > > 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.

I see.  To use a pronoun as the explicit subject or object of a verb is 
perfectly legitimate.  It simply adds emphasis or clarification.  The prefix 
and the pronoun will be indicating the same thing.

> 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."

You may only add {-Ha'} directly to the end of a verb.  It cannot modify 
suffixes.  Yes, it's a rover, but it must always be attached directly onto the 
verb.

You wouldn't want to say {jIreyHa'laH}, though, because this means "I am able 
to undefeat," with undefeating referring to something like removing one's 
victory, or perhaps failing to defeat.  This is not what you want.  However, 
you also don't want {jIjeylaHbe'} "I am not able to defeat."  This would mean 
you are not able to defeat things in general!  That's not what you mean!

> 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!

That's a possibility, though the correct prefix would be {tu-}.  {tujeylaHbe'} 
(you've changed the verb ! and I've fixed the negation) "You (plural) cannot 
defeat me."

Another possibility -- slightly more difficult -- is to use the Type 5 verb 
suffix {-lu'}.  By doing this you indicate that the subject is indefinite; 
that someone in general is the subject.  Read up on this suffix.  You'll see 
that the prefixes are used differently.

vIjeylu'be'
Someone does not defeat me.

Possibly, this could be done as {vIjeybe'lu'}.  (Depends on how you look at 
negation; is it just the suffix or the whole verb?)

The only problem with this approach is that you cannot talk about being 
"unable" to do something; because {-laH} and {-lu'} are of the same type, they 
can never be used together.

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

jIHeghlaH 'a tujeylaHbe'
I can die but you cannot defeat me.

Again, I don't see this as a good battle-cry.  Too thoughtful.  A bit too 
defeatist, admiting the dying part, I think.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97388.2

Back to archive top level