tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 07 10:55:45 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Two imperatives in a row?
- From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
- Subject: Two imperatives in a row?
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:54:22 -0600 (CST)
Doneq (I think) wrote:
: >ghItlh Alan Anderson:
: >}["Worf and Gowron. We're Klingons," says one Klingon truthfully.]
: >}<wo'rIv ghawran je. tlhIngan maH!> ja' wa' tlhIngan 'ej vIt.
: >}
: >} Remembering {DeSvetlh chop chev}, I'd add a sentence and lose a
: >} word: <...> ja wa' tlhIngan; vIt.
: >
: > It's clipped imperative, the correct way to address pets. From one
: > of the audio tapes. It means "Bite that arm off" literally "Bite
: > that arm! Separate it!"
:
: I understand that now; but I still don't know why I should leave the
: {'ej} out. I don't quite see the difference between {ja' 'ej vIt.}
: and {ja'. vIt.} and why the latter may (or may not) be better. Or
: just because it's shorter?
Qov responds:
: "Why do you leave 'ej out" is a valid question, and the answer is
: just, that's the way it seems to be done with the Klingon imperative.
: Consider other examples like:
: QaghmeylIj tIchID yIyoH
: targhlIj yIngagh yIruch
: I don't think we've ever seen imperatives joined with conjunctions in
: canon. I wouldn't say it was wrong to use {'ej}, just stilted and
: less than natural.
When using two simple imperatives, it does seem to be a matter of style. To
me at least, Qov's preference sounds more direct, more forceful, more...
Klingon. Here are more examples of more than one imperative in one utterance
(not necessarily one sentence), again not including the new material from
KGT. These have basically the same construction as above:
yIqIm, yIbuS
Pay attention and concentrate! CK
yISo'Ha'rup yIghuS
Stand by to de-cloak for firing. (?) ST5
yIQeqQo' neH. DoS yIqIp!
Don't just aim; hit the target! TKW
Here, the two imperative clauses are separated by a conjunction, so it can
be done if you want to. But notice how each imperative verb has a
*different* object or adverb modifying it:
teplIj yIwoH 'ej pa'lIjDaq yIjaH
Pick up your baggage and go to your room. CK
yIyong 'ej pa' yIQam
Get in and stand there. CK
yIvoq 'ach lojmItmey yISam
Trust, but locate the doors. TKW
yIvoq 'ach yI'ol
Trust, but verify. TKW
OTOH, this is how Okrand translated this very un-Klingon greeting for the
Radio Times:
yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep
Live long and prosper!
Again, {yIn nI'} is the object only of {yISIQ}, not {yIchep}. It appears a
conjunction may be used to clearly separate two clauses so that elements of
the two don't get confused.
Off the top of my head, my guess as to why "Maltz" avoids using {'ej}
between simple imperatives is that the resulting phrase would sound too
close to a {bI-verb1 'e' yI-verb2} formula:
bIjatlh 'e' yImev
Shut up! ("Stop speaking!") TKD
bIleS 'e' yImev
Stop relaxing! CK
bISuv 'e' yIwIv; bISutlh 'e' yIwIvQo'.
Choose to fight, not negotiate. TKW
However, remember this piece of useful advice:
bIjatlh 'e' yImev. yItlhutlh!
Stop talking! Drink! TKW
Chacun a son gout, it would seem.
-- Voragh