Darseks

[Abbot Nej vIt]

Greetings,

It occurred to me recently as I was responding to a post on another forum, that I often close an "Opinion" related post with something like "My two Darseks.

This lead to my wondering further about a proper tlhIngan Hol (Klingon Language) variant.

I have seen the word Darsek (A nondescript currency know to exist within the Empire) Klingon-ized as DarSeQ, or even DarSeq. Either of which would give us a somewhat similar sound. I like DarSeQ personally, so I'll use it for my question.

Presumeably I know the minimal grammar involved to point to the plural of DarSeQ being DarSeQmey (Darseks all over the place. or many Darseks), but would that still be appropriate if there were only two Darseks in the equation?

Further, cha' is two (2) and -wIj is the possessive suffix for "My."

However, from there my minimal understanding of proper Klingon grammar leaves me prepared to make errors in word order.

Would this: cha'wIj DarSeQmey mean: My two Darseks?

Perhaps: cha'DarSeQwIj would be more "Correct?"

It is even possible that neither of these is correct, so I would appreciate input here.

With the Caveat, that "My two Darseks" is an attempt at taking an English phrase "My two cents" and giving it a Klingon-esue treatment. I do not sincerely feel that Klingons would have come up with their own version of the English saying.

Thus, I am not asking for opinions on whether Klingons "Would" use it, have come up with something similar on their own, or any other more obscure theories about the appropriateness of taking known Human vernaculars and forcing them into a Klingon model. I would simply like to know what the grammatically correct translation would be regardless of whether it would make contextual sense to a real (Fictional) Klingon.

If that makes any sense...

maj! {Good}...

[ter'eS]

The word is from Klingon for the Galactic Traveler and is spelled DarSeq (sorry!).


The correct phrase would be cha' DarSeqmeywIj.  You could leave out the -mey plural suffix, for cha' DarSeqwIj, since the plural suffix is optional if the meaning is clear, and the cha' makes it clear it's a plural.  This is a rule we often overlook, I guess because plural markers aren't optional in English. 


BTW, the "scattered all around" meaning of -mey really only applies to words that normally take one of the other plurals, -pu' for beings capable of speech and -Du' for body parts.  With a word like DarSeq, it just means more than one.

[Abbot Nej vIt]

ter'eS,

Thanks, as usual,l your quick response and clear explanations are appreciated. (Including the correction of DarSeQ ---> DarSeq). I have never managed to find a copy of KGT (Other than on-line) so that clears that up nicely.

And it is gratifying to note that I was close with my second option (Discounting the misspelling of DarSeq of course)...

So the next question:

Would the literal translation of cha' DarSeqwIj be something like "Two [of] my Darseks?" Not that it is terribly important I am simply curious since direct translations are always approximate and rely heavily on context anyway.

maj! {Good}...

[ter'eS]

Would the literal translation of cha' DarSeqwIj be something like "Two [of] my Darseks?" Not that it is terribly important I am simply curious since direct translations are always approximate and rely heavily on context anyway.

You ask a subtle and ultimately unanswerable question.


The essence of a N1-N2 construction is that N1 restricts N2 to a particular subset of all N2s.  We usually think of using N1-N2 to show possession (eg. yaS taj "the captain's knife" (HoD 'captain', taj 'knife'), but this principle really applies to all kinds of situations.  If you think of HoD taj as "among the universe of all knives, the one of the captain", then it also explains names + titles (eg. ter'eS HoD "Captain Ter'esh",  or "among the universe of captains, the Ter'esh one"), and even numbers ("among the universe of darseks, two of them").


That said, there is no definite way to unambiguously form what is sometimes called the "partitive", or "X out of a larger set Y".  So cha' DarSeqwIj could mean either "my two darseks (and I don't have any more)" or "two of my darseks (out of the 5 I have in my pocket)", although Marc Okrand's explanation in The Klingon Dictionary only refers to the former meaning.

[Qunchuy]

That said, there is no definite way to unambiguously form what is sometimes called the "partitive", or "X out of a larger set Y".  So cha' DarSeqwIj could mean either "my two darseks (and I don't have any more)" or "two of my darseks (out of the 5 I have in my pocket)", although Marc Okrand's explanation in The Klingon Dictionary only refers to the former meaning.

In Star Trek III, the idea was carried by just the number, with the things being counted having been established earlier. wa' yIHoH Kill one (of them)!

[Abbot Nej vIt]

That said, there is no definite way to unambiguously form what is sometimes called the "partitive", or "X out of a larger set Y".  So cha' DarSeqwIj could mean either "my two darseks (and I don't have any more)" or "two of my darseks (out of the 5 I have in my pocket)" , although Marc Okrand's explanation in The Klingon Dictionary only refers to the former meaning.

I would gather then, that by the Okrandian supported "First" example; "my two darseks (and I don't have any more)", is likely the best interpretation and closest to the original meaning, because an assumption exists that all of the information (Number of Darseks/Complete opinion) is being presented as there is no context to suggest/invite additional interpretation.

Whereas, the "Second" example; "two of my darseks (out of the 5 I have in my pocket)", would only make sense if some previous information had been established or implied to support a more open ended interpretation. (i.e) Had I stated that there were many possible opinions (Multiple Darseks), but that I was restricting my answers to the "Two" (Set) that I have presented.

In Qunchuy's example from ST: III, for instance, where we as the viewers were already privy to the number [of targets] involved because we had been observing the story long enough to gather that information first hand.

Is this a correct interpretation of your meaning?

In other words, a some what complex way of restating that tlhIngan Hol (The Klingon Language) is highly context sensitive?

[Kesvirit]

I would certainly think so. If you were very sure of yourself (and don’t most Klingons want to come across that way, even when -- especially when -- they are not?), you would convey the certainty of your statement by putting all of your (two) darseks behind it, not just some of them (two out of the five). How sure are you, on a scale of one darsek to the entire five you are carrying?

On a more practical level, it is unwise for even the strongest, toughest etc. Klingons to let on how much money they are carrying. There are always bigger, meaner thugs lurking around the corner ready to relieve them of it. Don’t be foolish and advertise yourself as a target by announcing that you have money on your person! At the very least, the resulting fight will derail any schedule you are trying to keep.

-=- Kesvirit

[Klythe]

    Also, bragging about the abount of money you have isn't about to make other Klingons think any more of you...  They are more likely to think you are a Ferengi or something vile, ill conceived and best used as comic relieve like that.