[tlhIngan Hol] Bullets in Klingon

[Will Martin]

Again, in the spirit of bringing up topics that might be useful to anyone new with the language, there is only one (okay, two) exception(s) to the rule that all Klingon verbs always need a prefix (including the null prefix, when appropriate).

The one exception is that SOMETIMES a verb with {-meH} doesn’t need a prefix.

The issue here is the infinitive. When we say in English, “to learn”, we’re not telling you anything about a subject or an object. We’re cutting back to the essential meaning of the verb. Klingon doesn’t do that, except when using a {-meH} to describe a noun, when the verb with {-meH} doesn’t have a subject or object, as in {ghojmeH taj} — an “in-order-to-learn knife” or a “learning knife”. The purpose of the knife is for someone to use it in order “to learn”.

Verbs with {-meH} always precede whatever it is they are modifying, whether it’s a noun or a complete sentence. This infinitive (no prefix) potential for verbs with {-meH} only works for describing nouns, not complete sentences. When verbs with {-meH} describe whole sentences, they always form their own complete clauses, including an explicit or implied subject and where appropriate, an object.

Sometimes verbs with {-meH} describing nouns may need a subject and optionally an object in order to satisfactorily modify the noun it is describing. When that is the case, the verb with {-meH} always needs an appropriate prefix. {Duj lu‘ormeH ‘orwI’pu’ chaw’ poQlu’.} “An in-order-that-pilots-operate-a-ship permit is required.” This sentence would be incorrect without the {lu-}.

In every other case, without known exception, all Klingon verbs always need the appropriate prefix…

… except for the phrase {tu’lu’} in examples like {naDev tlhInganpu’ tu’lu’,}, which should be {naDev tlhInganpu’ lutu’lu’} to be grammatically correct, and it’s not wrong to include the {lu-}, but there are so many canon examples without it, where it would be grammatically required that it is a known exception to the general rule about prefixes. Consider it to be like “who / whom” in English. A remarkable number of English speakers never use “whom”, always replacing it with “who”, even when “whom” is more grammatically correct.

This is like that. You could complain about people using {tu’lu’} where {lutu’lu’} is grammatically correct, but you won’t get much support from the huddled masses.

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On Jan 31, 2023, at 7:39 AM, De'vID via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:29 AM James Landau via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org>> wrote:
>> >On a side note, note that there's a prefix missing in the title. "Boys like
>> >you" should be {SoH nIrurbogh loDpu'}.
>> 
>> So pjrases with *rurbogh* (or any kind of -bogh) need an agreement prefix if it's not just a third-person subject with a third-person direct object?
> 
> 
> It needs a prefix that agrees even when the subject and object are both third-person. It just happens that in those cases (excepting plural subject and singular object) that the prefix is null.
> 
> -- 
> De'vID
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230202/f04cdbbe/attachment.htm>