[tlhIngan Hol] Five Little Bunnies by Dan Yaccarino (Children's Book)

[Steven Boozer]

qunnoq:
>>   may'meyDajvo' Haw'be' tlhIngan.
>>   A Klingon does not run away from his battles. TKW
> 
> If I don't say this I will explode..
> 
> Although a "battle" takes place at a physical location, the "battle event"
> isn't the location itself. This example contradicts the rule "{-Daq} and
> {-vo'} are to be used only for physical locations".

I'm not sure it's a strict rule rather than an observation or rule-of-thumb, but there is another example of this with {may'}:

  may'Daq jaHDI' SuvwI' juppu'Daj lonbe' 
  When a warrior goes to a battle, he does not abandon
  his friends. TKW

After a quick search I couldn't find any other examples of events with {-Daq} and {-vo'}.  E.g. lopno', yupma', qoS, 'uQ'a', ghu', wanI', etc.  Can anybody think of one?

> Is there even a single descent argument, why I shouldn't use this example,
> as all the justification I would ever need, in order to use {-Daq} and {-
> vo'} for anything abstract, metaphorical, and immaterial I could possibly
> ever imagine ?

Don’t jump to conclusions.  Perhaps {may'} is an exception?  Perhaps Klingon culture doesn't consider a {may'} to be "abstract, metaphorical, and immaterial"?  Perhaps {may'} is considered a type of location - like {naDev} (hereabouts), {pa'} (thereabouts), {Dat} (everywhere) and possibly {vogh} (somewhere, someplace) - which we know can take {-vo'}:

  naDevvo' yIghoS 
  Go away! TKD

  naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be' 
  I can't see well from here. CK

  naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a' 
  Can we get to the Great Hall from here? PK

Okrand discussed these in TKD:

(TKD 27f):  It is worth noting at this point that the concepts expressed by the English adverbs here, there, and everywhere are expressed by nouns in Klingon: {naDev} hereabouts, {pa'} thereabouts, {Dat} everywhere. These words may perhaps be translated more literally as "area around here," "area over there," and "all places," respectively. Unlike other nouns, these three words are never followed by the locative suffix [{-Daq}]. (Note that {pa'} "thereabouts" and {pa'} "room" are identical in sound; {pa'Daq}, however, can mean only "in/to the room").

However, there is this one counter-example:

  pa'Daq qaStaH nuq 
  What's happening over there? [sic!] CK

Perhaps {pa'Daq} is a common mistake, like {tu'lu'}?  Perhaps this is considered substandard or uneducated speech?  (Why else would grammarians make such a rule?)  Not all native speakers follow elitist, prescriptive rules.  Klingons even have a word for this:  

(KGT 176):  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 181):  No one accepts such constructions as grammatical; their inappropriateness, the way they grate on the Klingon ear, is exactly what gives them elocutionary clout. A visitor may hear one of these odd suffixes occasionally, but, as with other intentionally ungrammatical forms, it is best to avoid using them until one is extremely comfortable with the nuances of Klingon style.

(TKD, introduction):  The grammatical sketch is intended to be an outline of Klingon grammar, not a complete description. Nevertheless, it should allow the reader to put Klingon words together in an acceptable manner... What follows is only a sketch or outline of Klingon grammar. Although a good many of the fine points are not covered, the sketch will allow the student of Klingon to figure out what a Klingon is saying and to respond in an intelligible, though somewhat brutish, manner. Most Klingons will never know the difference.

(TKD, introduction):  It should be remembered that even though the rules say 'always' and 'never,' when Klingon is actually spoken these rules are sometimes broken. What the rules represent, in other words, is what Klingon grammarians agree on as the 'best' Klingon.

(KGT 172):  Agreeing is not a trait typically associated with Klingon nature, however, and apparently, at least under certain circumstances, this may extend to grammar as well.

OTOH the CK {pa'Daq} example may simply be a mistake by Okrand.  Whenever people gleefully point these out I am always reminded of the 16th century Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund who once made a mistake in his Latin.  When told of this he replied, "Ego sum imperator Romanorum, et supra grammaticam."


--
Voragh
tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a'
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons