[tlhIngan Hol] {mej} with and without {-vo'}

Will Martin lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com
Wed May 25 07:18:28 PDT 2022

I noticed the same thing. It is strange to have the prefix suggest an object that has a Type 5 suffix (except {-‘e’} because, hey, {-'e’} is soooo exceptional). It’s more typical to say {bIQtIqDaq jIghoS} or {bIQtIq vIghoS} than {bIQtIqDaq vIghoS}.

I’m sure it can be perfectly justified. I just don’t see myself writing a sentence that does that. Perhaps some time in the future, there will be a circumstance when I’ll change my mind about that, but I don’t foresee it, nor am I especially interested in hearing an explanation of that case. It mostly seems, I don’t know, sloppy, kind of like tossing {tlhonmey} into a sentence with no poetic context.

Sure, you can do it. It’s just weird, even if Okrand does it.

One might expect a parallel between the use of {-Daq} with its special verbs and {-vo’} with its special verbs. Again, I’d tend to use the prefix indicating the object when there is no Type 5, and use the prefix indicating no object when there is a Type 5 suffix, but that’s just me. I’m not saying I’m right. I’m just saying that’s how I speak Klingon, and there’s no reason anybody shouldn’t understand that, if they generally understand Klingon.

Hey, if they can understand Morskan, they can understand me, and I’m more interested in being understood than I am in being in the know of the most arcane corners of Klingon grammar that are of sufficiently limited utility that it’s not worth the effort to keep up.


charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

> On May 25, 2022, at 9:43 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> The full sentence in case it hasn’t been given yet:
> ghe'tor Da'elta' 'ej lojmItmeyvo' Damejta' 'ach bIrIQbe'mo' SoH neH
> Since you are the only one who ever entered Gre'thor, and left the gates unharmed  (PB)
> There’s another sentence in paq’batlh contrasting {‘el} with {mej} without {-vo’}:
> vavlI' loDnI'lI' je DaSammeH ghe'tor Da'elmo' 'ej Damejmo' QeHchoH qa'pu' vaj lubIjlu'
> They will pay for the anger you caused by entering and leaving Gre'thor in search of your kin. (PB)
> Note the poetic parallelism in both:  {Da’elta’ ‘ej … Damejta’} and {Da’elmo’ ‘ej Damejmo’}.  (Interesting but irrelevant to the issue of whether or not to add {-vo’}.)
> --
> Voragh
> _________________________________________________
> From: D qunen'oS
> Also, reading the original post, I noticed this Ca'Non sentence:
> {lojmItmeyvo’ Damejta’}
> This sentence shows that a {-vo'}ed noun *can* be the object of a verb, something which -for reasons I don't know- I was under the impression that wasn't possible. Perhaps because I could never come up with an example where it would be necessary for a {-vo'}ed noun to be the object of a verb. Who knows? Go figure.
> -- 
> Dana'an
> https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!8y3YkHE8UDKU5PpVvBLn0N2Z1NfL2As6Bz5vy5DGIWFQqPTvJNT-2Q1wzeYWEhWiwui5Wjg7uolJnaBFOiA$>
> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220525/cb778993/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list