two -bogh clauses on a noun without being joined by 'ej
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? ~ Dana'an woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites
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
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$>
On 3/8/2021 10:48 AM, Steven Boozer 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)
And it seems to be conjoined by a *je,* which is why I didn't bring it up. It doesn't match what Qa'yIn is trying to do. If it had been *yoHbogh matlhbogh SuvwI',* it would have been what he was asking about. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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@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@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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@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@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
Did 'oqranD write this? SuStel:
And it seems to be conjoined by a je, which is why I didn't bring it up. It doesn't match what Qa'yIn is trying to do. If it had been yoHbogh matlhbogh SuvwI', it would have been what he was asking about.
Yes, indeed. And this {je} confuses me; isn't the {je} supposed to be joining only nouns? Or is it being intentionally misused for poetic reasons? On the other hand though, perhaps it's used with the "too" meaning of {je} in mind; i.e. "a warrior who is brave and true too". ~ Dana'an Ουαί υμίν γραμματείς και Φαρισαίοι υποκριταί
On 3/9/2021 7:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem) Did 'oqranD write this?
He translated it for the Star Trek: Klingon game. It's unclear to me whether this text is a transcription by a Klingonist of what is sung or provided directly by Okrand. The actors were not coached on its pronunciation, so they pronounce it badly.
SuStel:
And it seems to be conjoined by a je, which is why I didn't bring it up. It doesn't match what Qa'yIn is trying to do. If it had been yoHbogh matlhbogh SuvwI', it would have been what he was asking about. Yes, indeed. And this {je} confuses me; isn't the {je} supposed to be joining only nouns? Or is it being intentionally misused for poetic reasons?
On the other hand though, perhaps it's used with the "too" meaning of {je} in mind; i.e. "a warrior who is brave and true too".
The grammar has not been explained to us. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 15:07, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/9/2021 7:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
Did 'oqranD write this?
He translated it for the Star Trek: Klingon game. It's unclear to me whether this text is a transcription by a Klingonist of what is sung or provided directly by Okrand. The actors were not coached on its pronunciation, so they pronounce it badly.
The Klingon text was provided by Dr. Okrand. It appeared on the Simon & Schuster website promoting the Day of Honor series of novels. (That website is long gone, but it also included the original English lyrics by Hilary Bader, and a back-translation from Klingon into English by Dr. Okrand.) The text of the song also appears in a few Keith R. A. DeCandido novels (snippets on Google Books <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Qoy+qeylIS+puqloD%22+DeCandido&tbm=bks> ).
SuStel:
And it seems to be conjoined by a je, which is why I didn't bring it up. It doesn't match what Qa'yIn is trying to do. If it had been yoHbogh matlhbogh SuvwI', it would have been what he was asking about.
Yes, indeed. And this {je} confuses me; isn't the {je} supposed to be joining only nouns? Or is it being intentionally misused for poetic reasons?
On the other hand though, perhaps it's used with the "too" meaning of {je} in mind; i.e. "a warrior who is brave and true too".
The grammar has not been explained to us.
No, but he has said somewhere in an interview (I don't recall where) that he had tried to preserve the flavour or spirit of Hilary Bader's English lyrics in the translation, or something to that effect. While that doesn't explicitly explain the grammar of this sentence, it seems to mirror the archaic grammar of the English: "warrior brave and true", as opposed to the standard "brave and true warrior". So we can assume that saying {yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'} rather than {yoHbogh SuvwI' 'ej matlhbogh} in Klingon is like saying "warrior brave and true" rather than "brave and true warrior" in English. People will understand what you mean, but it sounds odd outside of poetry, song, or ritualised speech. -- De'vID
Am 10.03.2021 um 10:46 schrieb De'vID:
No, but he has said somewhere in an interview (I don't recall where) that he had tried to preserve the flavour or spirit of Hilary Bader's English lyrics in the translation, or something to that effect.
It could be anywehere else too, of course, but it seems very likely it was during the 10th qepHom 2011. I know we discussed the song there and both Okrand and you have attended that qepHom. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/WarriorsAnthem
participants (7)
-
De'vID -
kechpaja＠kechpaja.com -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin