tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 30 07:42:40 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -be' or -Qo'? I forget what the acronym was for the front... lol
naHQun:
> > -be', -Qo', and -Ha' are all rovers. As far as I know,
> > you can't use more than one same-type verb suffix. Can you?
Philip:
>I don't remember having seen anything definitive, but always assumed
>that you could not only use multiple rovers on one verb,
It's not stated in a rule, but there are examples:
nuQaw'qu'be'
they have not finished us off (TKD)
pIHoHvIpbe'qu'
we are NOT afraid to kill you (TKD)
pIHoHvIpqu'be'
we are not AFRAID to kill you (TKD)
pIHoHqu'vIpbe'
we are not afraid to KILL you (TKD)
> you could
>even use the same rover multiple times, at least for {-be'} ... in
>things such as, say, {jIHeghbe'qangbe'} "I am not ready not to die".
I've wondered about that too but can find no examples. I'd imagine
Klingons would understand it as a form of {mu'mey ru'} used as an
imaginative rhetorical device:
Sometimes words or phrases are coined for a specific occasion,
intentionally violating grammatical rules in order to have an
impact. Usually these are never heard again, though some gain
currency and might as well be classified as slang. Klingon
grammarians call such forms {mu'mey ru'} ("temporary words").
Sometimes, {mu'mey ru'} fill a void--that is, give voice to an
idea for which there is no standard (or even slang) expression;
sometimes, like slang, they are just more emphatic ways of
expressing an idea. A common way to create these constructions
is to bend the grammatical rules somewhat, violating the norm
in a way that is so obvious that there is no question that it
is being done intentionally. To do this is expressed in Klingon
as {pabHa'} ("misfollow [the rules], follow [the rules] wrongly").
[KGT 176]
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons