tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 19 13:57:06 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Kahless the Unforgettable

qa'ral wrote:

: 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.

Ne za chto.  Dvadtsat' let tomu nazad ya tozhe zhil v Moskve.  Chto vy tam

(qay'be'.  cha'maH ben *Moscow* vIDab jIH je.  pa' nuq Data'taH?)

: 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.

pagh wrote:

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

That's my cue.  Okrand translated this as "Kahless, whom none can forget"
in SkyBox card S8, which neatly avoids the problem: 

	yIntaHvIS qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' batlh 'etlhvam chenmoHlu'pu' 
	this sword of honor descends from the time of Kahless the Unforgettable.

{lIj} is used in a relative clause with {-bogh}.  

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

Simply attach {-vaD} to the main noun, Kahless:

	qeylISvaD lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'
	"for Kahless, whom none can forget"

: 3) Using the weaker epithet lIjlu'be' (unforgotten), I can say qeylIS
: vIlob  (I obey Kahless the Unforgotten) and qeylIS lIjlu'be'bogh vIlob (I
: Kahless who is not forgotten), which are grammatically distinct, but more

: less identical in meaning.  

Again, you need to use {-bogh} here, as in your second example.  Cf.
{boqrat chej Qevlu'pu'bogh} "stewed bokrat liver" (lit. "bokrat liver that
has been stewed, bokrat liver that (someone) has stewed") from KGT.  Thus: 
	qeylIS lIjbe'lu'bogh vIlob.
	I obey Kahless the Unforgotten.

Notice I've placed the rover {-be'} before {-lu'}.  Okrand seems to prefer
this order of suffixes, and there are several canonical examples:

	QuvlIjDaq yIHmey tu'be'lu'jaj!
	May your coordinates be free of tribbles! PK

	batlhHa' vanglu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu' 
	One does not achieve honor while acting dishonorably. TKW

	Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQqu' Hegh wanI' 
	Death is an experience best shared. TKW 

	noH QapmeH wo' Qaw'lu'chugh yay chavbe'lu' 'ej wo' choqmeH may'
	 DoHlu'chugh lujbe'lu' 
	"Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a battle
	 to save an empire is no defeat." TKW

	loS... qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He
	 ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH 
	It waits... on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown
	 regions of the universe. DS99

	'oy'be'lu'chugh Qapbe'lu' 
	No pain, no gain. TKW 

	ghob tIvnISbe'lu' 
	One need not enjoy virtue. TKW

	pujwI' HIvlu'chugh quvbe'lu' 
	There is no honor in attacking the weak. TKW

There is only one example with {-lu'be'} that I can find, and that is on
{tu'lu'}, which is an unusual idiom in Klingon:

	SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be' 
	There are no old warriors. TKW

Or, using Okrand's preferred version:

	qeylIS lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' vIlob.
	I obey Kahless the Unforgettable.
	("I obey Kahless, whom none can forget.")

As Okrand did in the SkyBox example, you can add the topicalizer {-'e'} to
show that {qeylIS}, not {vay'}, is the intended object of {vIlob}:

	qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' vIlob.
	("It is Kahless, whom none can forget, that I obey.")
	("It is Kahless that I obey, whom none can forget.")

: Similarly: De' lI' lughaj (they have useful information) and lI'bogh De' 
: lughaj (they have information that is useful).  Am I getting this right?

While the second is theoretically possible in Klingon - e.g. {Dargh SuD}
"green tea" vs. {SuDbogh Dargh} "tea which/that is green" - the first,
simpler version is preferred.  One place where the longer form is often
used though is when you want to use two or more qualities to describe one
noun, or one quality modifying another.  Here are two ways Okrand
translated "the tea is yellow (i.e. 'light {SuD}')":

	SuD Dargh 'ej wov 
	The tea is {SuD} and light. KGT
	(or simply "The tea is yellow.")

	SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh 
	The tea that is {SuD} and light. KGT 
	(or simply "the yellow tea")

Hope this helps.

Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level