tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 28 17:29:15 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: poH HochDaq Qong

jatlh quljIb:

> Qong - to sleep
> bIQong - thou sleeps

English dropped "thou" a few hundred years ago, so I don't know what you
mean here. But yes, <bIQong> is "you sleep".

> SuQong - you (thou and they) sleep

Again, I'm not sure who or what "thou and they" is supposed to mean. If I
were addressing a single person, I would say <bIQong>. If I were addressing
two or more people, I would say <SuQong>.

> SuQongchuq - you sleep with one another

Sorry, but no. <-chuq> does mean "one another", but it means that the
subjects do the action of the verb *to* each other. This could only work if
<Qong> meant "sleep (with)" in addition to just "sleep". If I could say
<be'nalwI' vIQong>, then I could say <maQongchuq>. I can't say either and
expect to make sense.

Klingon doesn't have a word for "with", but it does have plenty of ways to
express the idea. The most useful of these are the verbs <tlhej> and <tay'>.
If I wanted to say "we slept together" and wanted to emphasize the
"together" part, I would probably say <maQongtaHvIS matay'.> or <maQong.
matay'.>. If I wanted to say "Come have a drink with me", I would say <Ha'.
matlhutlh. HItlhej.>.

> SuQongchuqtaH - you continuously sleep toghether

The <-taH> is fine, but the <-chuq> is not.

> HoH - to kill
> HoHpu' - he killed (them)

He has, at the moment the sentence is understood to describe, completed the
act of killing them.

> HoHlu'pu' - someone killed them, they are kiled (dead)

Since the object is plural (them), and the subject is indefinite, and
therefore treated as third person singular, the prefix sould be <lu->.

> HoHlu'pu'wI'pu' - Those who are killed, the Dead

<-lu'> and <-wI'> probably do not work together. <-lu'> does *not* turn the
verb from "kill" to "be killed"; it just says that the subject is not
important in this sentence. Since <-wI'> turns the verb into a noun meaning
"one who does X" - essentially the subject of the verb - it really can't go
with <-lu'>. Don't feel too bad about this one - charghwI' tried to do the
same thing a while ago before everyone else convinced him it was not a good
idea.

Just go with <ghotpu' luHoHlu'pu'bogh>.

> batlh - honour

<batlh> is a noun meaning "honor" or an adverbial meaning "honorably". <quv>
is a noun meaning "honor" or a verb meaning "be honorable". Some have
speculated that the nouns differ in that <batlh> is more the abstract
concept of honor, and that <quv> is more personal honor, and there is some
evidence to support this. Take it carefully, though; it's far from certain.

> bathlHa' - dishonour

Doesn't work. <batlh> as a noun cannot take a verb suffix. There is an
adverbial <batlhHa'> meaning "dishonorably". It is known that *some*
adverbials have antonyms with <-Ha'> (e.g. <batlh> and <batlhHa'>), some
have distinct antonymns (e.g. <nom> and <QIt>), and some have no antonyms at
all (e.g. <vaj>).

The only possible word for "dishonor" is <quvHa'ghach>, which I think Okrand
himself has used at least once, although I may be wrong. In any case,
<batlhHa'> - "dishonorably" or <quvHa'> - "be dishonorable" may work better
anyway.

> batlhHa'lu' - someone dishonours them, they are dishonoured

<luquvHa'moHlu'> - "someone dishonors them" or <quvHa'> - "they are
dishonorable".

> HoHlu'pu'wI'pu' batlhHa'lu'bogh - The Dishonoured Dead

With my suggestions from above: <ghotpu' quvHa' luHoHlu'pu'bogh>.

> ghe''orDaq poH HochDaq je SuQongchuqtaH soH HoHlu'pu'wI'pu'
> batlhHa'lu'bogh je vIneH - "In {ghe''or} and for all time I
> want you sleeping with the Dishonoured Dead."

<poH HochDaq> really doesn't work here - <-Daq> is used for *spatial*
locations, not temporal ones. We do have a very nice adverbial which you
could use here, though. <reH> means "always".

Since the "sleeping" part is a bit awkward in Klingon, I will leave it out
and just suggest:

reH ghe''orDaq ghotpu' quvHa' luHoHlu'pu'bogh Datlhej vIneH.

If you are attached to the "sleeping" idea, you can probably figure out how
to add it.

> Or, to make it a command:

> ghe''orDaq poH HochDaq je beQongchuqtaH soH HoHlu'pu'wI'pu'
> batlhHa'lu'bogh je - "Sleep, thou, for all time in {ghe''or}
> with the Dishonoured Dead.

Again, with corrections:

reH ghe''orDaq ghotpu' quvHa' luHoHlu'pu'bogh tItlhej.

> I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the grammer for a
> toast (or in this case, a curse) differes from normal {tlhIngan
> Hol}. Is this true, and if so how?

The grammar for toasts involving the verb suffix <-jaj> (and all the
traditional ones do) is different. The sentence order is
object-subject-verb. Note that this grammar *only* applies, as far as we
know, to toasts, meaning a wish spoken with a <HIvje'> full of <HIq> raised
in the air, usually to a group, followed by a drink of said <HIq>. This does
*not* apply to other sentences which use <-jaj>. Also, the inhabitants of
the Sakrej region do not follow this grammar at all, and toast with normal
OVS word order.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

Back to archive top level