tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 17 07:07:53 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Klingon WOTD: baj (v)



Thank you, voragh. Your findings are quite interesting.

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:28:25 -0600 Steven Boozer 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu' 
> > Survival must be earned. TKW
> 
> charghwI' wrote:
>  
> : So far as I know, this is the only example of {'e' Xlu'}, and it 
> : has this unique meaning that one must earn that one (the same 
> : one who is doing the earning) lives.
> 
> There's another, also with [baj} as it happens:
> 
>   yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu' 
>   Victory must be earned. TKW

Again, the indefinite subject of both verbs is obviously the 
same entity. The one who earn is the one who achieves victory.
 
> : So, Voragh, your services would help here. Are there other 
> : examples of pairs of verbs with {-lu'} such that the assumption 
> : is that we are talking about the same indefinite subject? Things 
> : like {Xlu'chugh Ylu'} or {Xlu'taHvIS Ylu'} or {Xlu'mo' Ylu'} are 
> : what I'd be looking for. 
> 
> Here are all the pairs of verbs with {-lu'} I can find:
> 
>   pujwI' HIvlu'chugh quvbe'lu' 
>   There is no honor in attacking the weak. TKW

The one who attacks is the same one who is not honored.
 
>   batlhHa' vanglu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu' 
>   One does not achieve honor while acting dishonorably. TKW

The one who acts is the same one who does not achieve.
 
>   Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQqu' Hegh wanI' 
>   Death is an experience best shared.  TKW

The one who dies is the same one who is not alone.
 
>   'oy'be'lu'chugh Qapbe'lu' 
>   No pain, no gain. TKW

The one who does not hurt is the same one who does not succeed.
 
>   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

The indefinite subjects are the same entity.
 
>   loS... '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  DSN99
>   ["(It is) next to the route one follows to travel to the unknown
>    regions of the universe."]

This is a royal mess. "Indefinite" applies to more than just the 
subject. Still, it looks like all the indefinite subjects are 
the same entity.
 
>   qorDu' SaHlu'chugh 'ej matlhlu'chugh vaj wa' tlhIngan ghob potlhqu' 
>   devotion and loyalty to family is one of the most important Klingon
>    virtues. S13

The one who cares about the family is the same one who is loyal.
 
>   wa'DIch tlhIngan Dujmey luleghlu'pu'bogh rur qItI'nga Duj tera'
>    vatlh DISpoH cha'maH wej HochHom lo'lu'taH 
>   Similar in configuration to the first Klingon vessels encountered,
>    the K'Tinga-class remained in use for most of the 23rd century. S15

This one is more vague. The one who sees is probably not the 
same one who uses. Relative clause. This is grammatically quite 
remote from the Xlu' 'e' Ylu' example.
 
>   yIntaHbogh tlhIngan Soj tlhol jablu'DI' tIvqu'lu' 
>   Klingon food is best when served fresh and live. S21

Almost certainly, these indefinite subjects are different 
people, unless the suggestion is that serving the food is an act 
that is enjoyed. This makes this example interestingly 
ambiguous. Is it that one enjoy eating fresh, live food, or is 
it that one enjoys serving fresh, live food? The interpretation 
has heavy cultural loading.
 
>   HovpoH Hut vagh cha' wa' vI' jav Dujvam 'aghlu'pu' 'ach Qaw'lu'pu' 
>   [untranslated on card] S33

Most likely the indefinite subjects are different entities.
   
> As to why he didn't translate the phrase with {... net Sov}, the answer is
> simple: Okrand doesn't use {net}.  Period.

There may indeed be more to it than that. Okrand may simply have 
never needed it. valqu' *Okrand* net Sov. Most of the time you'd 
have an indefinite subject for which you'd use {net}, that 
subject is not the same entity mirrored back in the previous 
sentence. Okrand says in TKD that {net} is far more commonly 
used. He doesn't say you can't use X 'e' Ylu', but he does say 
this is uncommon. Perhaps {net} would do an inferior job of 
relating the indefinite subject as the same indefinite entity. 
Both of the examples we have found needed this link between the 
sentences.

> It occurred only once in the "real world":
> 
>   Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej 
>   "You will find it useful." (ST3 subtitles)

Notice that the one who does the discovering is not the one who 
is useful. This does constitute usage, even if it is one of the 
Valkris lines. Likely, Okrand did make up {net} in order to 
match lip movements, though {'e'} would fit the lip movements as 
well as {'e'}. Perhaps the actress had problems with glottal 
stops?
 
> As charghwI' himself posted on this list some time ago:
> 
>   this line was one of those Valkris was filmed saying in English,
>   then redubbed in Klingon. Okrand had to match lip movements. The
>   subtitle was something like "You'll find it useful." There was no
>   mention of "for the mission" in the subtitle, but Okrand needed to
>   add something to give her a reason to keep her lips moving. Note
>   that lip movements for "You'll find" look a lot like {Qu'vaD},
>   "it" looks a lot like {lI'} and "useful" loosely matches {tu'bej}.
> 
> When Okrand wrote TKD after the movie, he was forced to invent some grammar
> to cover this "Valkris-ism":
> 
>   Klingon has two special pronouns, {'e'} and {net}, which refer to 
>   the previous sentence as a whole. They are used primarily, though
>   not exclusively, with verbs of thinking or observation (such as
>   "know, see"). They are always treated as the object of the verb,
>   and the verb always takes a prefix indicating a third-person
>   singular object. What is a single sentence in English is often two
>   sentences in Klingon. {net} is used only under special circumstances,
>   but 'e' is common ... In complex sentences of this type, the second
>   verb never takes an aspect suffix. (section 4.2.7) When the verb of
>   the second sentence has a third-person subject (that is, the
>   pronominal prefix is 0) but the intended meaning is one or someone,
>   rather than "he", "she", "it", or "they", {net} is used instead of
>   {'e'}. 
>     qama'pu' DIHoH net Sov
>     One knows we kill prisoners ...
>   the first sentence here is {qama'pu' DIHoH} "We kill prisoners". The
>   second sentence is {net Sov} "One knows that". The full construction
>   implies that it is common knowledge that the group to which the
>   speaker belongs kills prisoners.

Again, the one who knows is not one of the killers.

>     Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej
>     One certainly finds it useful for the mission. 
>   The first part of this example is {Qu'vaD lI'} "It is useful for the
>   mission". The second part is {net tu'bej} "One certainly finds that"
>   or {One certainly observes that". The full construction might also
>   be translated "One will certainly observe that it is useful to the
>   mission".  (TKD p. 65f)
> 
> Note again:
> 
>   {net} is used only under special circumstances, but {'e'} is common

Also note again:

   When the verb of the second sentence has a third-person 
   subject (that is, the pronominal prefix is 0) but the 
   intended meaning is one or someone, rather than "he", "she", 
   "it", or "they", {net} is used instead of {'e'}.

> For some reason, even after going into such detail in the Dictionary,
> Okrand took an intense dislike to {net} and has never used it again in any
> other source AFAIK.  This prejudice explains the frequent use of {'e'} even
> where the grammar is unusual, even controversial.

If your presumption about his motive is correct, then your 
observation is correct. Meanwhile, if this instance in which 
there is an indefinite subject in both the first and second 
sentence and both verbs are referring to the same indefinite 
entity, this may very well be an exception to the use of {net}. 
If this is true, then the effect is identical to your presumed 
cause.

We can't tell which of us is right. As I see it, either 
explanation makes quite good sense and neither of us can prove 
that the other is misguided. It would be nice if Okrand 
commented on this.

> -- 
> Voragh                       
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons 

charghwI' 'utlh



Back to archive top level