[tlhIngan Hol] two -bogh clauses on a noun without being joined by 'ej

kechpaja at kechpaja.com kechpaja at kechpaja.com
Mon Mar 8 09:56:03 PST 2021

So, let's take a step back and look at this from a more formal 
linguistic angle.

When you add {-bogh} to a verb, it creates a relative clause, in which 
the relativized element — the noun that would be followed by _that_ or 
_who_ in English — can be either the subject or the object, depending on 
context (or whether someone has marked it with {-'e'}). The resulting 
clause is treated like a noun.

Now, ordinarily we don't see relative clauses in Klingon that don't 
contain at least one regular noun. After all, if we were relativizing 
the subject, this would produce a meaning more or less identical to that 
of the affix {-wI'}, so there's no reason not to just use {-wI'} 
instead. However, in poetry or music, where the rules of grammar can be 
a bit looser, it's easy to imagine a creative Klingon poet writing 
{yoHbogh} instead of {yoHwI'} for whatever reason (possibly to keep the 
stress from shifting to the affix).

If we re-write the line from the song as {yoHwI' matlhwI' je SuvwI'}, it 
doesn't feel as odd anymore to have {je} as the conjunction, since 
you're now conjoining two nouns that then modify a third noun (in this 
case, functioning as an attributive noun rather than a possessor). I 
suspect that this is what's happening here.

  - SapIr

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 11:46:05AM -0500, Will Martin wrote:
>If you’ve ever listened to anybody sing this, you get clear emphasis on alternating syllables (using case for emphasis, not for the normal Romanized alphabet):
>YOHbogh MATLHbogh JE suvWI’
>The poetic rhythm would definitely suffer, were it:
>YOHbogh ‘EJ matlhBOGH SuvWI’
>The two verbs deserve a symmetrical treatment in terms of emphasis, with the verb roots getting the emphasis and the suffixes not emphasized.
>As for {SuvwI’}, I’d guess it might be a question of interpretation as to whether to hold the emphatic pattern or break it to emphasize {Suv} as a form of poetic punctuation to end the line. I’d personally prefer:
>YOHbogh MATLHbogh JE SUVwi’
>I could march to that.
>I say this, stunned by the realization that I’m actually commenting on Klingon poetry as if I had a clue how it worked. This is just a gut feeling with zero authority.
>charghwI’ ‘utlh
>(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
>> On Mar 8, 2021, at 10:48 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> AFAIK there is one such example but it’s from a song and, as we know, poets sometimes deliberately {pabHa’} (“follow the rules wrongly”) for rhetorical or poetic effect:
>>   yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'
>>      Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw
>>   The blood of battle washes clean
>>      the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
>> Other examples of two {-bogh}’ed verbs modifying one noun  all use {‘ej}:
>>   romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'
>>   Romulan hunter-killer probe (KCD)
>>   SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh
>>   The tea that is SuD and light. (KGT)
>>   quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ
>>   ancient hearts of honor and wisdom (PB)
>> There is also an example of two {-bogh}s referring to the same subject noun, but they appear in different clauses:
>>   quv Hutlh HoHbogh tlhIngan 'ach qabDaj 'angbe'bogh
>>   A Klingon who kills without showing his face has no honor. (TKW)
>> --
>> Voragh, Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> From: SuStel
>> On 3/8/2021 8:07 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> I know that the usual way of using two -bogh clauses on a noun is by joining them with 'ej:
>>     HoHbogh 'ej Qaw'bogh nuH
>>     weapon which kills and destroys
>> But is there any rule which is actually being broken if we wrote the above without the 'ej?
>>    HoHbogh Qaw'bogh nuH
>>    weapon which kills which destroys
>> Why would writing something like this be wrong?
>> Since a relative clause is treated grammatically like a noun, doing this breaks no rules. But it's never appeared in canon, and it doesn't appear to be something that Klingons do.
>> Look at your English translation: weapon which kills which destroys. There's no rule in English that disallows that phrase, but it wouldn't be said in English. You'd say weapon which kills and destroys.Your phrase breaks no rule, but it's also not right.
>> --
>> SuStel
>> http://trimboli.name <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/trimboli.name__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!uxzeWaO8rXYJs38Z0V6lIAm1s7A5A9oGjz3LCkkZv7yO1FBCLP7uZqJsSpTKRZrvGrw$>_______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list