[Tlhingan-hol] Religious terminology

[Will Martin]

Points taken.

I’ve long suspected that {Hov ghajbe’bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe’bogh jaj} doesn’t need emphasis because in Klingon likely it is not the case that the day (which does not have secrets) resembles the night (which does not have stars). It’s a larger comparison than that: (a day which does not have secrets) resembles (a night which does not have stars). It’s not the day and the night that are alike. It’s the quality of lacking something essential that is the same between the two. Each entire clause represents a noun that isn’t stated explicitly.

Besides, it verges on poetry, and when you cross the line into poetry, all grammatical bets are off. I think it’s the most poetic thing Okrand has written yet. Besides the one word {tlhonmey}, that is. That should be both the title and content of a famous Klingon poem.

Just say it in a crowd of Klingons, and watch them all become quiet and thoughtful.

tlhonmey!

(and think of me when someone does this at the next qep’a’.)

This could be MY first contribution to the Universe’s collection of Klingon poetry. And it could be the most fun, stupid thing to do since {ghobe’! SuD!}

But not nearly as fun as {yIH ghupbogh be’ qan}. THAT was BRILLIANT. And it scans better without the {-pu’}, so you have poetic license.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Dec 4, 2015, at 1:40 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 12/4/2015 1:25 PM, Will Martin wrote:
>> HoDpu'’e’ nIv Qanqor.
>> 
>> It basically means, “Krankor is superior (while you think about
>> captains).” So, you might translate that is “Krankor is superior among
>> captains.” Okrand explains this as a “topicalizer”, suggesting that you
>> are presenting the topic of the sentence, but given some of the canon
>> examples, there are those here who strongly believe that he picked the
>> wrong word, even though he apparently picked the RIGHT word when he
>> picked “perfective” for {-pu’}, even as his description of {-pu’} didn’t
>> really convey what perfective apparently means.
> 
> It's not the same thing. {-'e'} is described in TKD as a topicalizer, marking the topic of the sentence. The examples of its use in TKD that claim it's a topicalizer shows its use as emphasis, which is a different thing. TKD does not, I think, have a true example of {-'e'} as topic, though we have at least one in canon.
> 
> Meanwhile, {-pu'} is explained correctly by Okrand, but simplistically. "An action is completed" is what TKD says, and it is what perfective means. For years we tried to add the idea of "... before the time context," which does not appear in TKD, and which does not describe the perfective.
> 
> By the way, qunnoQ, using {-'e'} to mark to head noun of a relative clause is optional. Do it if you want to clarify whether the head noun is the subject or object of the relative clause.
> 
> Here's a canonical example of a relative clause without the optional {-'e'}:
> 
>   Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj
>   a day without secrets is like a night without stars
> 
> If you wanted to use the optional {-'e'} on both relative clauses, it would look like this:
> 
>   Hov ghajbe'bogh ram'e' rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj'e'
> 
> Sometimes it is not important to disambiguate. Sometimes it is helpful not to. I once write a song called {yIH ghupbogh be' qan} and I liked the ambiguity: is it "the old woman who swallowed a tribble" or is it "the tribble which the old woman swallowed"? Does it matter?
> 
> (If I were writing it today, I'd have said {yIH ghuppu'bogh be' qan}.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151204/01699947/attachment.html>