tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 10 08:48:25 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}

Steven Boozer (

> >> (chenmoH is an action verb, not a stative one -- it
> >> would be stative without the -moH)

> > I don't understand this.  I don't know how {chen} is
> > used in canon (other than as part of {chenmoH}), but
> > it's defined as "build up, take form" and this doesn't
> > seem like a stative concept to me.  Isn't taking form
> > (unlike "having form") an active process rather than a
> > state?

>{chen} is an odd word and I don't know that we've been given really
>good canon to help explain how to use it.

Actually, we have several examples and even a few comments by Okrand:

{chen}  "build up, take form, take shape"

   4 + 3 = 7
   wej boq loS; chen Soch
   [four plus three equals seven]
   "four allies with three; seven forms" (HQ 9.3)

   4 ? 3 = 1
   loS boqha' wej; chen wa'
   [four minus three equals one]
   "three dissociates from four, one forms" (HQ 9.3)

   2 x 3 = 6
   cha'logh boq'egh wej; chen jav
   [two times three equals six]
   "twice, three allies with itself, six forms" (HQ 9.3)

   6 / 3 = 2
   wejlogh boqHa''egh jav; chen cha'
   [six divided by 3 equals two]
   "three times, six dissociates from itself, two forms" (HQ 9.3)

{chenHa'moH}  "destroy something"

   It can destroy them
   ("It can cause them to undo their form"). TKD

{chenmoH}  "build, form, make, create"

TKD 38:  {chenmoH} "he/she makes, creates" could be translated "he/she 
causes to take shape" ({chen} "take form, take shape"), but this is an 
awkward English phrase.

st.k 11/97):  ... say {vIchennISmoH} for "I need to create it".

st.k 2/23/98:  {chenmoH} "form, make, create" is the verb {chen} "build up, 
take form" plus the Type 4 suffix {-moH} "cause". To say "make again", the 
Type 3 suffix {-qa'} "do again" should come before the Type 4 suffix. Thus, 
you should say {vIchenqa'moH} "I make [it] again".

   tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH
   I form a boarding party. TKD

TKD 38:  This sentence might also be translated "I cause a boarding party 
to be formed".

   We can create it. TKD

   yIntaHvIS qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' batlh 'etlhvam chenmoHlu'pu'
   this sword of honor descends from the time of Kahless the Unforgettable. S8

   DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'
   Set fire on the side when there is danger. PK

   tlhIngan juHqo'Daq tlhIng yoSDaq 'oH toQDuj chenmoHlu'meH Daq wa'DIch'e'
   1st Construction Site: The Kling District, Klingon Home World.  KBoP

Derived nouns and noun phrases from {chen}:

   {chenmoHlu'meH Daq} "construction site" KBoP

   {chenmoHwI'} "creator, maker" KGT

KGT 79:  the sculptor ({Hew chenmoHwI'} [literally, "statue creator"])

>                                          One thing is clear, though.
>It is intransitive without {-moH}. There is a being which takes form.
>It doesn't take form something else, though something else can cause
>it to take form.
>In terms of being stative, I doubt it would be meaningful
>adjectivally. "Could you please hand me the take-form knife?" It's
>not like "hot" or "cold" or "tall" or most of the other stative verbs.

lay'tel SIvten [lay'SIv]:
>I don't think it's stative at all, but it's dynamic, indicating a *change* of
>state, as opposed to static.

>The canon for arithmetic, the only examples we have of the verb, seems to 
>lay out pretty well how its semantics work: {wej boq loS; chen Soch} "four 
>fuses with three; seven forms". From that, it seems that {chen} is dynamic 
>in nature, which is one of the things that quality verbs fundamentally 
>cannot be. One could probably say something like {naDev chentaH ghom'a'} 
>"a crowd is forming here" (although {naDev lughomqu'lu'} might be a little 
>more Klingon) or {chen HuD tlheghmey 'ej chenHa'} "mountain ranges take 
>shape and collapse". I wouldn't accept anything that put {chen} in 
>adjectival position: I can't even work out how I'd translate *{HuD chen 'oH}.
>In short, I'd agree with lay'SIv and say that {chen} is probably not a 
>quality verb.

Would other dynamic verbs include {moj} "become" (which, unlike {chen}, is 

   yaS vImojpu'
   I became an officer. TKD

   yaS DImojpu'
   We became officers. TKD

   DIHIvbe'ch[ugh] qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a' DImoj
   Attack or be slaves in their world. ST6

   bogh tlhInganpu', SuvwI'pu' moj, Hegh
   Klingons are born, live as warriors, then die. TKW

   wa' jaj 'etlh 'uchchoHlaH tlhIngan puqloD; jajvetlh loD nen moj
   The son of a Klingon is a man the day he can first hold a blade. TKW

   yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD 
   Gowron... named leader of the High Council by Captain Jean-Luc Picard, 
who was acting as Arbiter of Succession. S25

{gheS} "assume the duties of", {bogh} "be born}, {Hegh} "die", {cho'} 
"succeed (to authority)", {lu} "fall from power" and of course {choH} 
"alter, change"?  Interestingly, none of these have been used with the 
suffix {-choH} (change in state/direction) which makes perfect sense if 
lay'SIv and QeS are correct that these verbs are inherently "dynamic, 
indicating a *change* of state, as opposed to static".  Using {-choH} on a 
dynamic verb would be redundant.

Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level