tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 25 13:19:56 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: SISbogh chal 'e' vImuSHa'bej

>From: Klingon Warrior <[email protected]>
>
>David Trimboli wrote:  (all my responses are marked with this key:   <><>)
> >>/tuQ/ is a controversial word. Some think /tuQmoH/ is a separate entity; 
>I
>think it's just /tuQ + moH/ with a badly worded translation. Whatever it
>is, you missed the /vI-/ you'd need on it.
>
><><>I thought I accomplished the /vI-/ part of the sentence when I wrote: 
>/may'luchwIj tuQmoH
>jIH/.  I don't need a prefix if a pronoun is doing the job, qar'a'?

No!  The prefix is always required.  The pronoun is not.

>Also, you need /HurDaq jIqet/. /Hur/ "outside" is the location of the
>action, so it needs /-Daq/ "locative."
>
><><>I did not realize that the "locative" suffix was needed on locative 
>nouns.  Thank you.  I will
>remember this in the future.

Remember, there are three exceptions: /naDev/, /pa'/, and /Dat/.

> >SISmo', pay' 'ej pIj mev che'ronmeyDaq tIQ SuvtaHbogh vajpu' tIQ
>There are a few problems here. First, you can't join adverbials with /'ej/.
>That's for sentences (or rather, for verb phases).
>
><><>Did not know that...what do I do then?  Should I just start the 
>sentence /pay' pIj/?

Unfortunately, we don't know for sure.  There was a HolQeD article or two 
about this some time ago.  Our best guess is that you simply stack them up, 
yes.

>Second, you can't put
>a locative after the verb. /che'ronmeyDaq mev/, not */mev che'ronmeyDaq/.
>
><><>I think you may have misread my sentence (or rather I miswrote my 
>sentence).  I wanted to say, "Ancient Warriors who fought on ancient 
>battlefields stop..."  What I was attempting to do was to have "Ancient 
>Warriors who fought on ancient battlefields" as my subject, then have my 
>main verb /mev/.  I can't do this?  Otherwise, I understand about having 
>/Daq-/ after the verb.

mev che'ronmey tIQDaq Suvbogh SuvwI'pu' tIQ
Ancient warriors who fought on ancient battlefields stop.

>Third, if you're taking about "on the ancient battlefields," remember that
>Type 5 nouns suffixes like /-Daq/ migrate onto any adjectivally-acting 
>verb.
>It's /che'ronmey tIQDaq/, not */che'ronmeyDaq tIQ/. Finally, /vaj/
>doesn't refer to specific warriors, it refers to the concept of being a
>warrior. A specific warrior is "SuvwI'."
>
><><>I purposely placed /Daq-/ on the noun so that I would get this comment. 
>  I don't know what
>suffixes migrate from the noun to the adjective in Klingon.  And where can 
>I find this out in TKD or
>KGT?

TKD section 4.4 (page 50).  All Type 5 noun suffixes migrate from the noun 
to the adjectivally-acting verb.

>  Also, I, again, used /vaj/ to create an abstract sense of the nature of a 
>warrior.  Sort of like saying, "A TRUE Warrior would stop to enjoy the 
>rain.  This is what a Warrior does."

It sounds like what you want is /SuvwI'na'/ "definite warrior."  /vaj/ means 
something more like "warrior-ness."  "Warrior-ness" doesn't fight on 
battlefields, "warriors" do.

> >'ej chal Ho' chaH.
>People often forget the /lu-/ prefix. /chal luHo' chaH/.
>
><><>Why do I need /lu'/?  Isn't my sentence, "They admire the sky?"  I 
>don't want to say, "The sky was admired."

I didn't say /-lu'/, I said /lu-/.  It's a verb prefix.

>Daj tIghlIj. SISbogh chal quvmoHlu'pu' not 'e' vIQoy. tlhIngan tIgh
>'oH'a'? Da'ogh'a'?
>
><><>One question:  why is /not/ before /'e'/?  Should it be, /'e' not 
>vIQoy/?

Therein lies another controversy.

According to the rules of TKD, /'e'/ is always the object of a verb.  Here's 
Klingon sentence structure:

<Headers> <Object> <Verb> <Subject>

All of those words that aren't objects, verbs, or subjects are when I will 
call "Headers."  This includes the adverbials, like /not/.  If I wanted to 
say "I never heard it," I'd use:

not 'oH vIQoy
I never heard it.

Now, substitute /'e'/ "that" for /'oH/ "it," and you get

not 'e' vIQoy
I never heard that . . .

Since /'e'/ always refers to a previous sentence, let's stick it in there:

SISbogh chal quvmoHlu'pu' not 'e' vIQoy
I've never heard that the raining sky is honored by someone.
(Note also the migrated /-pu'/.)

Here it is again, broken into its component sentences:

[SISbogh chal quvmoHlu'pu'] [not 'e' vIQoy]

See how it works?  Simple, huh?

Now here's the controversy: in all of canon, Okrand has only used a "header" 
on the second verb of a Sentence As Object construction ONCE, and THAT usage 
(it's on one of the SkyBox cards) has it like this:

'e' <adverbial> <verb>

the way you were doing it.

My guess is that Okrand wasn't sure what to do either, and took a guess.  He 
probably even fell into the same trap that gets a lot of people: they forget 
that /'e'/ is NOT a sentence conjunction, but rather an object pronoun.

Unfortunately, this particular sentence in the canon is, as I recall, 
riddled with other grammatical problems (Okrand forgets to migrate the 
/-taH/ from the second to the first verb in the construction, for instance). 
  I don't take any conclusions drawn from that sentence too seriously.

><><>See, the rain has an oposite effect on me.  Rain makes me smile :)  The 
>bright sky makes you happy, huh?  Eh, you were probably born of a clan that 
>had water!  :)

Pisces jIH.

>  But, why did you say you do not honor ancestors?

pagh lalDan vIpab.  no' vIquvHa'moHbe', 'a vIquvmoHbe' je.

SuStel
Stardate 3481.8

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Back to archive top level