tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 18 09:34:58 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)

-----Original Message-----
From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 6:18 PM
Subject: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)


>>You cannot say "we Klingons" in Klingon.  You cannot say {maHagh
>>tlhInganpu'} for "We Klingons laugh."  It just don't work that way!
>
>Just to pick a nit:  How do we know it doesn't work that way?  Is
>it explicitly forbidden by canon?

We don't know (i.e. it is not printed in Okrandian script).  It is my firm
and unshakable-except-only-by-one-person opinion.  It also sounds silly to
me to do it your way.  I rely highly on my instincts in knowing right from
wrong in Klingon, and this one is sounding every alarm.  I know that you
will not accept this explanation.

> It seems like simple apposition
>to me (to those who reply that apposition needs two nouns, just
>think of this as a briefer form of {maHagh maH tlhInganpu'}).  Why
>isn't this phrase legal: {bIQIp SoH qoH} "You, fool, are stupid."

I don't think Klingon apposition would work with pronouns.  They already
perform so many other functions, this one just doesn't seem to fit.  I
highly, seriously, and completely doubt that it could also be elided.  This
apposition is anything except "simple."

Your phrase is "legal," if you say the {qoH} as direct address.  {bIQIp SoH,
qoH} "You are stupid, fool."  We don't know if it's legal as you would have
it.  For every instance that you try the "we Klingons" thing, I have a
simpler, cleaner, and much more solid version of my own.

>I can imagine a situation in which some Klingons are in a room with
>Ferengi, Humans, etc.  Someone comments that a dangerous situation is
>about to occur.  A Klingon replies {Qobmo' maHagh tlhInganpu'}.  To
>simply say {Qobmo' maHagh} might imply that everyone in the room laughs at
>danger, whereas our Klingon wants to emphasis that just the Klingons
>are so cool.

{Qobmo' Hagh tlhInganpu'}  If the speaker cannot figure out which group is
the Klingon group, he's got a perceptual problem anyway.  If he means "the
Klingons in this room," well then, {Qobmo' Hagh tlhInganpu'vam}.

Hell, the Klingon could just say {Qobmo' maHagh maH} and the emphasis on
{maH} would probably make his meaning entirely clear.

>Sure, I can live without it, but if nothing forbids it, what's wrong
>with using it?

Look at it this way: speak in lots of different ways, and almost be
guaranteed to be wrong in several places; or speak in a few proven ways,
which are just as expressive, and be right virtually all of the time.

Consider also the "rule of {rom}" (KGT p.172).  Then again, you will simply
point to the "agreeing is not a trait typically associated with Klingon
nature" part.

SuStel
Stardate 97881.5

Back to archive top level