[tlhIngan Hol] 2018 qep'a' Proverb Contest

[nIqolay Q]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:11 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For my entry, I tried to get {qogh vItuQHa'moHpu'} turned into an official
> secrecy proverb (I've always thought it strange that it wasn't, since it's
> perfect for it), and also to force Okrand into clarifying whether
> {tuQmoHHa'} is an error (since it's supposed to be {tuQHa'moH} "by the
> book").
>

He's talked a little about something similar before. I suspect {tuQmoHHa'}
was originally an error that was retconned to be a slang usage.​ (Wouldn't
be the first time!)

<http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-11-30-news.txt>

> A problem comes in because some of these forms (that is, some of these
> verb​ + suffix combinations) are so common, they seem to, in the minds of
> some​ ​K​lingons anyway, act as if they were simply verb and not verb +
> suffix at​ ​all. This seems to happen only when the suffix in question is
> -moH​ ​"cause." Maltz reports having heard both quv'eghmoH "he/she honors​
> h​​im/herself," which follows the expected order (verb-Type 1-Type 4: quv
> "be honored," -'egh "oneself," -moH "cause") as well as the weird
> quvmoH'egh​ "he/she honors him/herself," in which the Type 1 suffix -'egh
> "oneself" follows the Type 4 suffix -moH "cause," an impossible formation
> unless the speaker is considering the verb to be quvmoH "honor" and not quv
> "be honored." Speakers who do this seem to be aware that they are breaking
> the rules, so they are doing it for rhetorical effect.
>

http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-11-30-news.txt​

Perhaps the distinction between {qogh tuQmoHHa'} and the secrecy proverbs
is that the former is only used in casual, slang-appropriate situations,
whereas the latter are a bit more formal. Another possible distinction is
that the secrecy proverbs are used in one static form without any
variations, whereas {qogh tuQmoHHa'} is an idiom that can be slotted into a
sentence as necessary. For instance, I don't think you can say a secrecy
proverb on someone else's behalf, but {qogh tuQmoHHa'pu' ghaH} "you can
trust him with your secret" seems legitimate enough. Or {qogh
DatuQmoHHa''a'?} "can you keep a secret?"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180723/58ee6126/attachment-0003.htm>