[Tlhingan-hol] tlhInganpu'

[Robyn Stewart]

You have my twofold agreement: canon should be honoured, and vay' is a better choice than Doch, regardless of canon.

- Qov

> -----Original Message-----
> From: De'vID [mailto:de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com]
> Sent: May 19, 2016 5:18
> To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
> Cc: Robyn Stewart
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] tlhInganpu'
> 
> Qov:
> > I’ll chime with the caution that the “headless relative clause” is
> > unattributed in Klingon.  The noun that is the subject or object of
> > the verb with –bogh has to be explicit in order for it to be the
> > subject or object of another verb.
> >
> > ? neHbogh chargh tlhIngan
> > Doch neHbogh chargh tlhIngan =  a Klingon conquers the thing that s/he
> > wants
> >
> > We could say {ngoQ luneHbogh} or {Doch luneHbogh}, but I don’t think
> > we even need that.  How about we substitute {ngoQ} or {chabal} for {Doch
> neHbogh}?
> >
> > chabal chargh tlhIngan = A Klingon conquers that which s/he desires.
> 
> I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but the canonical rendition of
> this (TKW p.149) uses {vay'} as the head noun. I won't quote it so as not to
> spoil it for anyone who wants to try to express the idea themselves.
> 
> --
> De'vID