tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 19 09:44:49 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Kahless the Unforgettable

jatlh qa'ral:

If the following questions cover old ground, it's for one of two reasons:
I'm new to this list, and for several years I've been living in Moscow,
where the Web is my only source of information on tlhingan Hol.  I'd thank
you in advance for your advice, but that would be somewhat un-Klingon.

1) How does one say "Kahless the Unforgettable," "Unforgettable Kahless,"
or, for that matter, "Kahless cannot be forgotten"?  The best I could come
up with is qeylIS lIjlu'laHbe' for all three expressions (or perhaps qeylIS
lIjlu'laHbe'bogh for the first).  But this violates the prohibition against
using two suffixes of one type (Type 5) in the same verb structure.

2) How then would you say "for Kahless the Unforgettable" (using the

3) Using the weaker epithet lIjlu'be' (unforgotten), I can say qeylIS
lIjlu'be' vIlob  (I obey Kahless the Unforgotten) and qeylIS lIjlu'be'bogh
vIlob (I obey Kahless who is not forgotten), which are grammatically
distinct, but more or less identical in meaning.  Similarly:  De' lI' lughaj
(they have useful information) and lI'bogh De' lughaj (they have information
that is useful).  Am I getting this right?

You can call me qa'ral

Voragh may post a more detailed explanation later, but here's the short
form. The correct way to say "Khaless the Unforgettable", according to Marc
Okrand, is <qeylIS lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'>.

If you think about it, <... V-lu'> is pretty much the same as <... V vay'>,
which is why this works. Okrand also says in KGT that Klingons occasionally
use one of two slang type five suffixes which combine the meaning of <-lu'>
and <-laH>: <-luH> and <-la'>. You would certainly not use either of these
in any kind of formal or written speech, but in casual conversation, either
one may be OK.

Note that this implies that Klingons almost never violate the "only one
suffix per type" rule: they would rather make up an entirely new suffix than
use two of the same type. Most suffix types only make sense with one anyway,
but English speakers are sometimes tempted to double up on suffixes of types
2 or 5 (e.g. <-rupnIS>). Klingons are not so tempted.

For your third question, <lIjlu'be'> is not "a verb which describes a state
or quality" (I'll just call this a "stative verb"), so it cannot just be
plunked down after a noun. When a stative verb is placed after a noun, it
has the exact same meaning as if it is placed before the noun with a


Back to archive top level