tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 04 18:13:00 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon pleasantries

According to the interview, verbs like {jaH} "go" and {leng} "travel"
already include a locative concept, and as such the "destination" or
"location" can be the object of the sentence.  Thus, sentences like {bIQtIq
vIjaH} and {bIQtIq vIleng} mean "I go to the river" and "I travel to the
river" respectively.  The object of a verb of motion seems to be the

Furthermore, you can add the noun suffix {-Daq} to the objects.  That's
right, {-Daq}'d nouns no longer are not a part of the Object-Verb-Suffix
clause.  They can be the object part, even with the {-Daq} on it.
Apparently, the "location" meaning of the suffix remains, even as an object.

However, these sentences might use a {-Daq}'d noun NOT as an object.  For
instance, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} and {bIQtIqDaq jIleng}.  Notice the verb prefix
{jI-} "I subject/no object."  These mean "I go in the river (I am in the
river and I go)" and "I travel in the river (I am in the river and I

Now, I could live with this, if it weren't for the fact that we've got a TON
of sentences from Okrand which blatantly ignore this rule, yet came along
LONG before it.  Perhaps Voragh will be interested in listing them.  (Okay,
I admit: I don't know if it's a ton.  But I get the impression there's quite
a bit.  The one I think of readily is {naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?} "Can
we get to the Great Hall from here?" [Power Klingon]  According to the new
rule, this should mean "Can we go in the Great Hall from here? [Can we be in
the Great Hall and go, from here?]")

So, when we see another example like {ghorgh pa'wIjDaq jIchegh} "When can I
return to my room?" from Conversational Klingon, I can only assume that
{chegh} is one of those motion verbs, and as such includes the locative
concept in its meaning.  That means that it would correctly be {ghorgh
pa'wIjDaq vIchegh} or {ghorgh pa'wIj vIchegh}.  Unless of course someone
wants to go and explain why {chegh} should be an exception to the rule . . .

Interestingly, the only example that I know of that benefits from the new
rule is the line in Star Trek III by Kruge: {jolpa' yIjaH!} "To the
transport room!"  Otherwise, I've always had to rationalize it as Clipped
Klingon (which actually makes sense, since the English is similarly


-----Original Message-----
From: <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Date: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Klingon pleasantries

>In a message dated 2/3/99 5:32:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> writes:
> I'm really not liking this particular new rule, as it seems to violate one
> of the primary structures of the language upon which much canon was based.
> Perhaps we should pester Okrand to explain the inconsistency? >>
>What exactly is the inconsistency?  qaStaHvIS 'e' vISovbe'.

Back to archive top level