tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 08 09:02:52 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tuQ(Ha')moH
lay'tel SIvten:
> >This homophony explains why the Klingon slang expression {qogh
> >tuQmoHHa'}, literally "take off one's belt" is used to mean
> >"to not hear", for example, {qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'} "I've taken
> >off my belt; your secret is safe with me." [HQ v2n4p17]
> >I suggest that the verb in {qogh tuQmoHHa'} meaning "to take off one's
> >belt" is also idiomatic and different from the standard {tuQHa'moH}
> >"undress" of TKD.
QeS la':
>Keeping in mind that {-moH} is also the most common suffix used out of p=
lace
>by native Klingon speakers, usually for rhetorical effect, it may be use=
d in
>a non-idiomatic sense as well:
>
>"A problem comes in because some of these forms (that is, some of these =
verb
>+ suffix combinations) are so common, they seem to, in the minds of some
>Klingons anyway, act as if they were simply verb and not verb + suffix a=
t
>all. This seems to happen only when the suffix in question is {-moH}
>'cause'. Maltz reports having heard both {quv'eghmoH} 'he/she honors
>him/herself', which follows the expected order (verb-Type 1-Type 4: {quv=
}
>'be honored', {-'egh} 'oneself', {-moH} 'cause') as well as the weird
>{quvmoH'egh} 'he/she honors him/herself', in which the Type 1 suffix {-'=
egh}
>'oneself' follows the Type 4 suffix {-moH} 'cause', an impossible format=
ion
>unless the speaker is considering the verb to be {quvmoH} 'honor' and no=
t
>{quv} 'be honored'." (Okrand on MSN newsgroup, 30 Nov 1997)
I suspect that QeS is right in reminding us of Maltz's comment that some=20
speakers occasionally use {-moHHa'} instead of the prescriptively "correc=
t"=20
form {-Ha'moH}. It could be that this is an indicator of either uneducat=
ed=20
or lower-class speech, contamination from a regional "dialect", or traces=
=20
of an earlier free variation in the order of the suffixes. (Of course,=20
it's more likely that Okrand just slipped up in his use {qogh tuQmoHHa'} =
in=20
HolQeD 2.4 and asked Maltz to come up with an explanation on the MSN=20
newsgroup!)
OTOH it's equally likely that lay'tel is right in that the "marked" form=20
{tuQmoHHa'} is only used in the idiomatic phrase, while the "correct" for=
m=20
{tuQHa'moH} is used when speaking literally about changing clothes. A=20
similar example can be seen in the idiomatic phrase {mIv je DaS} - which =
is=20
also used with {tuQ} as it happens:
Normally, an idiom follows the rules of Klingon grammar (for
example, the verb takes the prefix appropriate to the meaning
intended), but occasionally, one will be grammatically aberrant.
Thus, the phrase {mIv je DaS} (literally, "helmet and boot") is
used to mean fully dressed, as for a ceremonial affair (as in
{mIv je DaS tuQ ra'wI'} ("The commander wears helmet and boot"-=AD
that is, "The commander is in full dress uniform"). Normally,
the conjunction {je} ("and") would be expected to follow the
second noun (here, {DaS} ["boot"]), but in this phrase, it does
not. The grammatically correct {mIv DaS je} also means "helmet
and boot", but it would not be used in the sense of full dress.
The sentence {mIv DaS je tuQ ra'wI'} would mean simply {The
commander is wearing a helmet and a boot" (or, since the plural
need never be overtly indicated, perhaps this would mean "The
commander is wearing a helmet and boots"). How the odd gramma-
tical construction came to be is not known with certainty, but
it probably is based on an older form of the language. The fact
that the expression for "full dress" includes the word {mIv}
"helmet" also suggests that the phrase has been in use for a
long time, since helmets are no longer commonly part of Klingon
attire. Finally, it is important to note that the idiomatic
expression is always {mIv je DaS} ("helmet and boot"), never
{DaS je mIv} ("boot and helmet"). As is frequently the case in
idioms, the order of elements cannot be changed. [KGT 107-8]
Unfortunately {qogh tuQmoHHa'} and {qogh vItuQmoHHa'pu'} are both from=20
HolQeD 2.4 and are our only examples of {tuQHa'moH} (the citation form in=
=20
the TKD glossary IIRC), so we have no way of knowing whether the variant=20
{tuQmoHHa'} is the usual form, a common variant, or unique to this one=20
slang expression.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons