[Tlhingan-hol] roj

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

It’s easy to create beliefs, even when there is no evidence to prove it. You can do that until you are speaking a dialect that only you can understand.

Likely, Klingon is one of the few languages that a lot of people learn to speak without having anyone specific that the student actually intends to talk to using the language, so I can see this as even a goal for some people; certainly nothing to avoid, especially if you have a mailing list that offers you the fantasy of convincing everyone else to speak your personal dialect, making you a leader among men in a life that might not otherwise provide you with that opportunity.

Meanwhile, consider the word {chen}. It’s a verb meaning “build up, take form”. You could decide to believe that “build up” works for “he built up a wall,” so in your mind {chen} can definitely take a direct object. Meanwhile, in canon, every single use of it with a direct object takes the form {chenmoH}, suggesting that {chen} actually does not take an object.

While it may be true that perhaps {Hegh quv Hegh HoD} could mean “The captain died an honorable death,” you could just as easily have said {batlh Hegh HoD} to convey the same meaning, and likely you’d be understood by more people with less confusion or challenge.

You’ve presented an argument. Many have responded suggesting that you are very likely incorrect. You don’t seem to be accepting any of this, but instead restate your original suggestion, repeatedly, without producing any additional evidence or argument to make your point stronger.

I’m just pointing this out, just in case you haven’t noticed.

I’ve done this far to many times, myself. Eventually I’ve regretted it. It leaves me with a yearning to spare you that regret, even if I suspect the effort is futile.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably



> On Nov 7, 2015, at 6:45 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> bI'reng:
>>>> What do people think about this sentence?
>>>>   romuluSnganpu' rojlI' DIvI'.
>>>>   The Federation is making peace with the Romulans.
> 
> qurgh:
>> [poD]
>> Since I don't believe {roj} can take an object (it's "make peace" not "make
>> peace with"), I'd translate the English phrase as:
>> 
>> rojlI' DIvI' romuluSnganpu' je - The Federation and the Romulans are in  the
>> process of making peace.
> 
> Marc Okrand has said that you can't always tell whether a verb is
> transitive or what its object is, based on the English definitions.
> The example that he gave to illustrate this is {tlhIngan yIn DayIn}
> "You live a Klingon life". It's not obvious from the definition that
> {yIn} can take an object, but it can.
> 
> I'm fairly certain that the following is allowed:
> {Hegh quv Hegh HoD} "The captain died an honourable death"
> 
> Note that {ghob}, which is defined as "fight, battle, do battle, wage
> war" (not "do battle with" or "wage war against") can take an object:
> {ghobchuq loDnI'pu'} "the brother fight one another" (here, the object
> is the combatant)
> {noH ghoblu'DI' yay quv law' Hoch quv puS} "in war, there is nothing
> more honourable than victory" (here, the object is the individual war
> which is fought)
> 
> I believe that {roj} can take an object, namely, the noun {roj}. I
> think (but am not sure) that the following are possible sentences in
> Klingon:
> {rojHom luroj} "they made a truce"
> {veS'a' luQoj 'e' lutIv tlhInganpu'} "Klingons enjoy initiating massive warfare"
> 
> Perhaps {roj} "make peace" works like {ghob} "wage war", and you can
> say {rojchuq DIvI' romuluSnganpu' je}, but that would be speculation.
> 
> -- 
> De'vID
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol