tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 02 10:10:02 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Grammar Highlight Each Day (Multiple Adjectives)


> De'vID:
> : Doesn't the song {Qoy qeylIS puqloD} have a line that goes:
> : {yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'}?  According to this highlight,
> : it would be {yoHbogh 'ej matlhbogh SuvwI'}.  Is it acceptable 
> : both ways, or did MO make a mistake?  

Voragh:
>[...]
> N.B. this is *not* a mistake; Okrand was translating a marked, archaic
> English usage - "the warrior brave and true".  Putting the adjective after
> it's noun is usually seen only in song and poetry nowadays.  This appears
> to be his attempt at an archaic Klingon "feel" in what may be a very old
> song.  (Doesn't Okrand say somewhere in KGT that {je} is sometimes used
> incorrectly instead of {'ej}?  Maybe this "error" is a dialectical
> variation or a remnant of older usage.)  

Ah!  I had thought that they were based on applying {-bogh} to 
different sentences which were equivalent in meaning:

{yoH, matlh je SuvwI'}
"The warrior is brave.  He is also loyal."

-> {yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'}
   "The warrior who is brave, who is also loyal."

{yoH 'ej matlh SuvwI'}
"The warrior is brave, and he is loyal."
(This is essentially another way of saying the same thing as above.)

-> {yoHbogh 'ej matlhbogh SuvwI'}
   "The warrior who is brave and loyal."

The reason that I didn't think the song was archaic was because the
rest of it seems to be what we know as "modern" Klingon.  But I can
see the parallel to the English "the warrior brave and true", and
I remember in KGT about {je} being used archaically for {'ej} in
some places.  

Do we actually know the grammar of {-bogh} applied to multiple verbs
or is it just inferred from examples?

> In any event, I don't think you should model your speech on a bit of odd
> grammar in the Anthem, particularly when we have examples of more standard
> (modern?) usage:
> 
>   romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' 
>   Romulan hunter-killer probe. KCD

I always thought this was funny because it sounds like the probe is
searching for and killing Romulans.  I'm sure Klingons enjoy this
particular bit of ambiguity.
 
> peHruS:
> >  machbogh 'ej Doqbogh 'ej tISbogh 'ej qutlhbogh nav chIm legh be'
> >  A woman sees the little, red, lightweight, cheap, empty paper.

Voragh:
> I don't think that we've seen evidence of more than two "adjectives" strung
> together like this, however.  Too many, I think, would confuse the listener.

>From what I've seen of canon, and tell me if this is correct, my 
impression is that MO always splits up a sentence into multiple
smaller ones if more than about two verbs are involved. 

To say the above, I think this would "feel" more Okrandian (it looks 
like how {SarDan lut} has been doing it):

nav legh be'.  mach nav.  Doq.  tIS.  qutlh.  chIm.
The woman sees the paper.  The paper is small, [it is] red, etc.

Or, if there is some particular reason to single out an attribute
for emphasis, say {mach}, then maybe:

machbogh nav legh be'.  Doq nav.  tIS.  etc.

But I don't see a reason to be so specific.  A Klingon would probably
say just enough to identify this piece of paper but no more.  

Btw can a {nav} "paper" be said to {chIm} "be empty, deserted, 
uninhabited"?  While I understood what was meant, I didn't think
{chIm} was applicable to {nav}.  Maybe it could be {nIt} "be plain,
pure, uncorrupted, unsullied" until it is written on (and thus
spoiled!).

--
De'vID

--
tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]

Back to archive top level