<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/14/2020 12:28 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsjwfpJjcR2MLZeuLOaXcLWVYiyXD88Z7yAzAmQg=J_6A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:09 PM
SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>That last construction only occurs in one song, and
doesn't follow known rules. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">Apparently Okrand chose that
construction with the intent that it was an archaic usage,
to mimic the unusual "warrior brave and true" phrasing in
the English. So there's a little bit of a known rule:
"combine multiple <b>-bogh</b> clauses with <b>je</b> if
you want your Klingon to sound archaic".</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This seems possible, but it's also possible that this
translation, which was fairly early for him, was just a too-close
translation of the English. Unless he tells us that that's what he
was doing, we don't really know for sure. We can't be absolutely
sure the phrase is not allowed, but we also can't really explain
its grammar for certain either.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsjwfpJjcR2MLZeuLOaXcLWVYiyXD88Z7yAzAmQg=J_6A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Instead, we can say <b>tInbogh chab 'ej 'eybogh</b> or
<b>tInbogh 'ej 'eybogh chab.</b> I'm not sure if the
form of <b>tInbogh chab 'ey</b> or <b>'eybogh chab tIn</b>
has ever been used in canon, though it's perfectly
grammatical.
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">paq'batlh has some:<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"><b>yoHbogh SuvwI' law' </b><i>many
brave warriors</i> (pages 145-155, line 2)<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"><b>Qobbogh may' nI'</b> <i>long and
dangerous battle</i> (pages 158-159, line 15)</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"><b>quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ</b>
<i>ancient hearts of honor and wisdom </i>(pages 188-189,
line 21), which combines both ways of putting multiple
stative verbs on a noun<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In that case, there seems to be no reason not to use this form
too.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>