Litany Against Fear

[jIHaD]

jIghIjnISlu'be'.
I must not fear.
yab HoHwI' 'oH ghIjlu'taHghach'e'.
Fear is the killer of the mind.
Sangchu'ghach qembogh HeghHom  'oH ghIjlu'taHghach'e'.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
ghIjlu'taHghachwIj vISuv.
I will fight my fear.
mujuS 'e' vIchaw'.
I will allow it to pass me.
ghoSta'DI' ghIjlu'taHghach, HeDaj leghmeH yab mIn vIlo'.
When the fear has gone, I will use the mind's eye to see its course.
ghIjlu'taHghach HeDaq, pagh tu'lu'.
On the fear's course, there will be nothing.
jIratlh jIH neH.
Only I will remain.


Get to the nit-picking, folks. 

[tesseraktik]

Get to the nit-picking, folks. 

Don't mind if I do!

jIghIjnISlu'be' - You need to change the jI- to a vI-
I'm uncertain if the -be' should go after ghIj or -lu'; I have a feeling that it is the former, but perhaps somebody else knows better.
Anyhow, I kind of read this as "It is essential for one to not scare me", which to me is a different concept than "It is essential for me to not be scared", but again, I don't know.  It's unfortunate that -vIp and -nIS belong to the same class; I'd've liked to use something like jIvangvIpbe'nIS {I must not be afraid to act}.
Perhaps something like vIghIjlu'chugh jIQapHa'pu'. {If I am scared, I have failed}, or vIghIjlu' 'e' vItuchnIS {I must forbid that I am scared}.
Of course, because this is prose, it's hard to say what's "correct", anyway.

ghIjlu'taHghach'e' - It's hard to comment on -ghach-constructions, but this does seem to mean "the act/quality/state of being scared", so it makes sense.

Sangchu'ghach qembogh HeghHom  'oH ghIjlu'taHghach'e'. - This seems to be correct, but I'd probably go with Sangchu'bogh HeghHom 'oH ghIjlu'taHghach'e'. {Scared-ness is the little-death that obliterates totally}, but that's more a matter of taste.

mujuS 'e' vIchaw'. - The problems here is that juS is translated not only as "pass", but also as "overtake", so it can be taken to mean "I will allow it to catch up to me", which isn't necessarily what you want.  I might suggest mutlhej 'e' vIchaw'Qo'. {I refuse to allow it to accompany me}.

ghoSta'DI' ghIjlu'taHghach - It's worth noting that ghoS means not only "to go", but also "to approach" or "to come", and the -ta' makes me think more of the latter ("When fear has purposefully come here").
Perhaps mej or tlhaD {leave/depart} would be more appropriate?  Or lengtaHvIS {as it travels}?

Now, folks, get to nit-picking my nit-picking!

[qurgh_]

Here's my comments

Yes, -be' should go after the -nIS or the ghIj, depending on what you want to mean (jIghIjnISbe' - I don't need to scare, jIghIjbe'nIS - I need to not scare). Maybe something like: mughIj 'e' vIchaw'be'nIS - I need to not allow it to scare me

ghIjlu'taHghach doesn't make sense in my mind. -lu' makes the doer of the verb unknown, yet we are turning this into a noun.

A note about -ghach. If you attach -ghach to an stative verb (eg tIn - be big) then it becomes a -ness word: tIntaHghach - *bigness/the quality of being big. If you attach it to an activity verb (eg ghIj - scare) then it becomes a -tion word: ghIjtaHghach - *scare-tion/the activity of scaring (maybe fright might be a better translation as in "I gave him a fright"). This is how I read Okrand comments on it.

ghIjlu'taHghach'e' - It's hard to comment on -ghach-constructions, but this does seem to mean "the act/quality/state of being scared", so it makes sense.

ghIj is to scare, not to be scared. So it's not the "act/quality/state of being scared", it's the "act of scaring".

Instead of Sangchu'ghach, you can just use QIHna' (definite destruction), then you can avoid the -ghach clause: QIHna' qembogh HeghHom'e' 'oH ghIjtaHghach - "fright" is the small death that brings definite destruction.

ghoSta'DI' ghIjlu'taHghach, HeDaj leghmeH yab mIn vIlo'.
When the fear has gone, I will use the mind's eye to see its course.

I don't think -ta' is correct here. The fear didn't plan to go somewhere and then succeed at doing it. Remember it's aspect, not tense. I also wonder about ghoS, since it's so ambiguous (approach, go, etc). I would have gone with something like this:

mejDI' ghIjtaHghach, HeDaj vIleghmeH yab mIn vIlo' - When the fright has left, I will use the mind's eye in order that I see it's course.

jIratlh jIH neH.
Only I will remain.

I wonder if the jIH is overkill. Right now it means: I, and only I, only remain. Some suggestions:

jIratlh neH - Only I remain
nIteb jIratlh - I remain alone

Here's some canon examples of how ghIj is used:

not qoHpu''e' neH ghIjlu'. (Only fools can never be scared by someone - Someone can never scare only fools)
Only fools have no fear.
 
vay' DaghIjlaHchugh bIHoSghaj. (If you can scare someone, you are powerful)
Fear is power.

[tesseraktik]

ghIjlu'taHghach'e' - It's hard to comment on -ghach-constructions, but this does seem to mean "the act/quality/state of being scared", so it makes sense.

ghIj is to scare, not to be scared. So it's not the "act/quality/state of being scared", it's the "act of scaring".

I figure that's what the lu' is there for; to convert it from "the act of scaring" to "the act of being scared".  However, I don't think there are any canonical examples of -lu' being used in a -ghach-construction, so I don't know if this is actually possible.

jIratlh jIH neH.
Only I will remain.

I wonder if the jIH is overkill. Right now it means: I, and only I, only remain. Some suggestions:

jIratlh neH - Only I remain

Wouldn't that just trivializ the remaining?  "I merely remain."
http://klingonska.org/ref/adv.html

Anyhow, jIratlh jIH neH. works for me; there is a canonical example in which a pronoun is used to emphasize the subject:
lujpu' jIH'e'. - It is I who have failed.
I figure neH can take the place of -'e'; it's definitely grammatically correct, and it makes sense.

[qurgh_]

jIratlh jIH neH.
Only I will remain.

I wonder if the jIH is overkill. Right now it means: I, and only I, only remain. Some suggestions:

jIratlh neH - Only I remain

Wouldn't that just trivializ the remaining?  "I merely remain."
http://klingonska.org/ref/adv.html

That's a good point. Without a noun there it would appear to mean "I only remain". I guess the jIH would be needed to shift the focus of neH, but it feels to me like it adds extra meaning too. I think we need something else.

Anyhow, jIratlh jIH neH. works for me; there is a canonical example in which a pronoun is used to emphasize the subject:
lujpu' jIH'e'. - It is I who have failed.
I figure neH can take the place of -'e'; it's definitely grammatically correct, and it makes sense.

In lujpu' jIH'e' there is no verb prefix and jIH'e' is taking it's place. So if we go with:

ratlh jIH'e' neH
It is only I who remains

then it would mimic the "failed" sentence, it uses jIH, -'e' and neH so you get tons of emphasis on the speaker being the only person there.

[Kehlan]

I thought this thread was familiar... the subject of the Litany against fear has been raised before... I just found the old thread.... http://www.klingon.org/smboard/index.php/topic,1065.0.html

[tesseraktik]

In lujpu' jIH'e' there is no verb prefix and jIH'e' is taking it's place.

Good point; I missed that!
That's actually a very interesting deviation from the rule stated on page on p.60 of TKD:  When the subject/object is first or second person, you must use the correct prefix [as in yaS vIlegh jIH {I see the officer.}].
I guess that means that in some sense, jIH'e' is grammatically a third-person argument in lujpu' jIH'e' {it is the me-person that has failed}.

So if we go with:

ratlh jIH'e' neH
It is only I who remains

then it would mimic the "failed" sentence, it uses jIH, -'e' and neH so you get tons of emphasis on the speaker being the only person there.

Aye, that could work, although I think using both -'e' and neH feels like a bit of an overkill; it feels as though the neH does the trick of topicalizing the jIH, anyway.  However, that's just a gut feeling, and the proverb you provided (not qoHpu''e' neH ghIjlu'. - "Only fools are never scared.") suggests that one can use both in the same sentence.  I wonder if perhaps the -'e' is what keeps that sentence from meaning "One never scares only fools."

Interestngly, if neH were a verb/adjective, like most of the words you use to modify nouns, I'd argue that jIH neH'e' was the correct phrase.  However, neH is explicitly stated (TKD p. 57) as an adverbial that can follow nouns, so were it not for the proverb you stated I wouldn't be sure how it was to be used.

I thought this thread was familiar... the subject of the Litany against fear has been raised before... I just found the old thread.... http://www.klingon.org/smboard/index.php/topic,1065.0.html

Daj. {Interesting!}

I see that they've used Haj {to dread} rather than ghIj {to scare}, which makes sense.  Then, "I must not fear" could be translated as jIHajbe'nIS {I-(dread-not)-necessarily}, and one could perhaps then refer to "fear" as HajtaHghach {ongoing dreading}...  ...or, if one wants to be very particular:  Hajghach {dreading}.  Normally, the nominalizer suffix -ghach isn't found following lone stems, according to Marc Okrand:

HQ: So, if we use {-ghach} on a bare stem...

MO: It's a highly marked form. It's a word you are forming for a specific
    occasion and a specific effect. If you were a poet or philosopher or
    hard scientist and had to describe something very specifically these
    kinds of words might be appropriate but it carries the feeling of very
    technical arcane vocabulary, not normal everyday stuff. So can you
    say it? Yes, but you are saying more, rather than less or neutral.

So, saying Hajghach may be quite a powerful expression, as is perhaps appropriate here, but you use it at your own risk; you may get into a violent debate with other poets and philosphers on what the true meaning of Hajghach is!

Also, that article also brings up the subject of attaching -ghach to verbs with prefixes (and, supposedly, the -lu'-suffix):  It's freaking weird, but not unheard of.  jIHajghach would mean something like "the action of me dreading", and vIghIjlu'ghach would mean something like "the action of me being scared".  ghIjlu'ghach would mean something like "the action of being scared"; I'm not sure if the fact that -lu' is a prefix makes this construction seem more "normal" to Klingons than ones that use prefixes.

Also, another suggesiton would be vangvIpghach; "being afraid to act".  This is perhaps a bit more specific than the phrase "be afraid", but possibly appropriate, depending on what you mean to express.  Is fear always bad, or is it only bad when it keeps you from doing what needs to be done?  Can fear perhaps be a good thing, because it keeps you alert, or keeps you from taking dumb risks?  The proverb qurgh mentioned suggest that at least some Klingons think being completely without fear is foolilsh.
Perhaps vangvIpchu'ghach, "being completely afraid of acting", could mean something like "debilitating fear", or fear which not only makes you afraid of doing something (perhaps in a good way), prevents you from doing it.  That, is, however, up for debate.

Y'know, I wonder if somebody will one day start lexicalizing -ghach-construction, and cause a great controversy in the Klingonist community similar to the way the lexicalizing of lujvo is controversial among Lojbanists

[qurgh_]

I was going to try and wade through the mass of code and quote out bits, but it was giving me a headache so I started fresh

I'm going to admit to a misunderstanding I had about neH, that was pointed out to me by Captain Krankor (the KLI's head grammarian):

neH trivialises the verb or noun it's following, it doesn't mean "alone", which I how I understand the final phrase in the litany. After that conversation, I'd switch it to:

nIteb jIratlh - I will remain alone
nIteb jIratlh jIH - I, and only I, will remain alone

I think the last one really sums up the concept.

Now onto -ghach:

Recently I asked Marc for words for apathy and corruption. He gave me these options:

SaHHa'ghach - disinterest (unconcerned about-ness)
quvHa'ghach - dishonor (unhonor-ness)

Which made me think about using different suffixes:

Hajchu'ghach - perfect dread (perfect dread-ness)
Hajbejghach - certain dread (certain dread-ness)
Hajlaw'ghach - apparent dread (apprent dread-ness)
Hajba'ghach - obvious dread (obvious dread-ness)

or

ghIjchu'ghach - perfect fear
ghIjbejghach - certain fear
etc etc

I think one of these may work better than using something with -lu' and -taH.

I would avoid using marked clauses like Hajghach unless nothing else works. In this case we have other words that would work.

I've been working on a translation with some help from Captain Krankor and he actually suggested using a -ghach clause with a prefix, but he commented that he's only doing it because there was no other way and it's very controversial to do it (some people say it's ok, others say it's very not ok). In that light I'm going to try and avoid them unless I have to, since they are very hard to translate into other languages, due to our lack of knowledge on how they really work.

Y'know, I wonder if somebody will one day start lexicalizing -ghach-construction, and cause a great controversy in the Klingonist community similar to the way the lexicalizing of lujvo is controversial among Lojbanists

It was done by Glen Prochel from the Interstellar Language School in his "Complete Klingon dictionary". He put in a lot of -ghach words, and ended up causing quite a fuss due to the fact that they could be understood in other ways that the definitions he gave.

[tesseraktik]

I'm going to admit to a misunderstanding I had about neH, that was pointed out to me by Captain Krankor (the KLI's head grammarian):

neH trivialises the verb or noun it's following, it doesn't mean "alone", which I how I understand the final phrase in the litany.

In that case, this is a misunderstanding we share.  I took it from what little is said of the word in TKD that it can also mean "alone", as that is the translation that is given, and yaS neH is translated both as "only the officer" and as "the officer alone".

I've been working on a translation with some help from Captain Krankor and he actually suggested using a -ghach clause with a prefix, but he commented that he's only doing it because there was no other way and it's very controversial to do it (some people say it's ok, others say it's very not ok). In that light I'm going to try and avoid them unless I have to, since they are very hard to translate into other languages, due to our lack of knowledge on how they really work.

Aye, Okrand mentions that it's a highly marked form, and so it's a bit risky to use.

I rather like Hajchu'ghach (perfect dread); I feel that it suggests a dread which really has an impact on you, perhaps preventing you from doing something (as opposed to non-perfect dread, which might make you uncomfortable while doing something but without really slowing you down or stopping you).

Y'know, I wonder if somebody will one day start lexicalizing -ghach-construction, and cause a great controversy in the Klingonist community similar to the way the lexicalizing of lujvo is controversial among Lojbanists

It was done by Glen Prochel from the Interstellar Language School in his "Complete Klingon dictionary". He put in a lot of -ghach words, and ended up causing quite a fuss due to the fact that they could be understood in other ways that the definitions he gave.

Ah, interesting to hear that this parallel exists

[qurgh_]

I'm going to admit to a misunderstanding I had about neH, that was pointed out to me by Captain Krankor (the KLI's head grammarian):

neH trivialises the verb or noun it's following, it doesn't mean "alone", which I how I understand the final phrase in the litany.

In that case, this is a misunderstanding we share.  I took it from what little is said of the word in TKD that it can also mean "alone", as that is the translation that is given, and yaS neH is translated both as "only the officer" and as "the officer alone".

I think it's more of the "That guy did it by himself (although there were others there)" kind of "alone" and not the "There is no one else here" kind of "alone". Maybe some examples will help my explanation:

qIp yaS neH - Only the officer hit him (out of a group of people), the office alone hit him
nIteb qIp'egh yaS - Alone, the office hit himself
qIp neH yaS - The officer only hit him, the officer merely hit him, the officer just hit him

Dayaj'a'?

[tesseraktik]

jIyaj, 'ach choponbe'pu'. - I understand, but I am not convinced.
Saying that somebody does something by themselves doesn't necessarily seem like a way of trivializing them.

molar ghob 'e' ngIlpu' qeylIS neH. - "Only Kahless dared to fight Molor."
This hardly trivializes Kahless; if anything, it sets him apart from other Klingons.  On the same note, ratlh jIH('e') neH. makes some sense to me (although using nIteb certainly works, too).

[El Payaso Malo]

What exactly is being debated here? The usage of neH to trivialize as opposed to meaing "be alone?"
From the Klingon Way.
Suvlu'taHvIS yapbe' HoS neH.
(Brute strength is not the most important asset in a fight. - 21)
'ang'eghQo' quv Hutlhbogh jagh neH ghobtaHvIS ghaH.
(Only an enemy without honor refuses to show himself in battle. - 61)
wa' DoS neH yIbuS.
(Focus on but one target. - 81)
not qoHpu''e' neH ghIjlu'.
(Only fools have no fear. - 105)
meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH.
(Only a fool fights in a burning house. - 111)
HIvbe' qoHpu' neH.
(Only fools don't attack. - 113)
Hegh neH chav qoH.
(A fool's only achievement is death. - 115)
yIQeqQo' neH. DoS yIqIp!
(Don't just aim; hit the target! - 191)

[qurgh_]

I believe what is being debated is if neH can be used to refer to an object that is by itself or if it's used to select something out of a group.
And then by extension, if the final phrase of the literary is "I remain all by myself" or if it's "I remain out of a group of people", or maybe both.

The trivialization seems to effect verbs more than nouns, I should have been clearer in my orginal statement. Here's the quote from the dictionary (emphasis added):

neH only, merely, just

Unlike the other adverbials, it follows the verb which it
modifies. The semantic effect is one of trivializing the action.

    qama' vIqIppu' neH I merely hit the prisoner.
                         (qama' prisoner, vIqIppu' I hit him/
                         her)
    Duj yIQotlh neH Just disable the ship!
                      (Duj ship, vessel, yIQotlh disable it!)

The use of neH in the preceding sentence implies that the ship
is to be disabled, but not damaged further.
  Also unlike the other adverbials, neH can follow a noun. In
such cases, it means only, alone.

    yaS neH only the officer, the officer alone
    jonta' neH only the engine

Now back to the original question. I that neH can only be used to refer to a person or object out of a larger group:

jonta' neH - only the engines (not the rest of the ship)
wa' DoS neH yIbuS - Concentrate on one target only (out of a group of targets)
HIvbe' qoHpu' neH - Only fools don't attack (out of a group of fools and non-fools)
Hegh neH chav qoH - Fools achieve only death (out of a bunch of things they could achieve... they are fools because they only achieve death)
molar ghob 'e' ngIlpu' qeylIS neH - Only Kahless dared to battle Molar (only Kahless out of all the other Klingons on the planet)

If I wanted to say "Kahless fought molar and there was no one else there" I'd say:

nIteb ghob qeylIS molar je - Alone, Kahless and Molar fought

So for the last line of the literny our choices are:

jIratlh jIH neH - Only I remain (from the group of people who where here)
nIteb jIratlh - Alone, I remain (there's no one else here)
nIteb jIratlh jIH neH - Alone, only I remain (the rest of the group are gone and now I'll all alone)

Did I miss anything?

[El Payaso Malo]

I provided examples just to be used in the argument, for or against. There is also the verb mob ("be alone") that can be added to the list of similar terms, if it hasn't been all ready.

[tesseraktik]

I believe what is being debated is if neH can be used to refer to an object that is by itself or if it's used to select something out of a group.
And then by extension, if the final phrase of the literary is "I remain all by myself" or if it's "I remain out of a group of people", or maybe both.

Ah, alright, I think I see what you mean, now, and I think that might be the case.

Still, I figure ratlh jIH neH might still work, because it's pretty much saying "out of the group consisting of me and my fear, only I will remain".

[Qunchuy]

I'm going to admit to a misunderstanding I had about neH, that was pointed out to me by Captain Krankor (the KLI's head grammarian):

neH trivialises the verb or noun it's following, it doesn't mean "alone", which I how I understand the final phrase in the litany.

This interpretation was once emphasized to me by Marc Okrand himself. At lunch one day, when the server was taking drink orders, I said bIQ neH. He "corrected" me with bIQ mob. I thus found myself defending my use of neH to mean only water as in "simple water" rather than "water with nothing else."

[El Payaso Malo]

This interpretation was once emphasized to me by Marc Okrand himself. At lunch one day, when the server was taking drink orders, I said bIQ neH. He "corrected" me with bIQ mob. I thus found myself defending my use of neH to mean only water as in "simple water" rather than "water with nothing else."

Was your defense successful?

[Qunchuy]

Once I followed through and ordered more food, bIQ mob "water alone" was obviously a misinterpretation of my true intent, and bIQ neH "only water" was clearly an appropriate way to contrast my drink request with others' qoqqoq ("Diet Coke") and Dargh chuch je ("iced tea").

[El Payaso Malo]

Once I followed through and ordered more food, bIQ mob "water alone" was obviously a misinterpretation of my true intent, and bIQ neH "only water" was clearly an appropriate way to contrast my drink request with others' qoqqoq ("Diet Coke") and Dargh chuch je ("iced tea").

I have to know where you go to order in Klingon. Do they serve ghargh? 

[QoghtlhIH'u']

I am a bit late in this discussion on the Litany Against Fear, but I would like to point out that in The Klingon Way there are four or five sayings with 'fear' in the Federation Standard translation, but in the Klingon version the words are different each time.

I think that the point Okrand was trying to make is that Klingons do not know, or deny, the concept of fear. Instead, they only know how to scare others: ghIj

A Klingon can express his/her ability to scare others but not to experience fear, it is as such not a concept.

[QoghtlhIH'u']

By the way, tesseraktik, what did you do to fraek? Is he assimilated or something?

[qurgh_]

I am a bit late in this discussion on the Litany Against Fear, but I would like to point out that in The Klingon Way there are four or five sayings with 'fear' in the Federation Standard translation, but in the Klingon version the words are different each time.

I think that the point Okrand was trying to make is that Klingons do not know, or deny, the concept of fear. Instead, they only know how to scare others: ghIj

A Klingon can express his/her ability to scare others but not to experience fear, it is as such not a concept.

A Klingon can express her/her ability to be scared (to experience fear):

choghIj - You scared me (I was scared of you)
mughIj romuluSngan tIn - The big Romulan scared me (I was scared by the big Romulan)

They can also express fear of an action:

vIHoHvIp - I am afraid to kill him
Duj qan vI'elvIp - I am afraid to enter the old ship

Most Klingon's consider it taboo to use -vIp with a first person subject (and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar taboo with ghIj and first person object).

[QoghtlhIH'u']

Well qurgh, I considered the construction vI-...-vIp to be ungrammatical.

Sure, fear can be expressed using ghIj meaning to scare, but as a concept as such fear is simply not defined in the Klingon language. That was my point.

Now, if you have to translate a non Klingon text into Klingon it will be necessary to use constructions with ghIj , as much as you have to work your way around translating the Dutch word 'gezellig' into some English word depending on the context, because there is no one to one translation.

The Klingon language is the language of people who deny the possibilty of experiencing fear themselves, among other things. That is peculiar to their way of communicating.
Although if we look at the canonical examples from The Klingon Way:

vay' DaghIjlaHchugh bIHoSghaj.
Fear is power.

not qoHpu''e' neH ghIjlu'.
Only fools have no fear.

ghIj qet jaghmeyjaj.
May you enemies run with fear.

jaghmeylI' DaghIjjaj qetjaj jaghmeylI'.
May you scare your enemies, may your enemies run.

it is in Only fools have no fear Klingons admit that it is possible to be scared, presumably by an enemy that is more fierce.

[qurgh_]

Well qurgh, I considered the construction vI-...-vIp to be ungrammatical.

Sure, fear can be expressed using ghIj meaning to scare, but as a concept as such fear is simply not defined in the Klingon language. That was my point.

Now, if you have to translate a non Klingon text into Klingon it will be necessary to use constructions with ghIj , as much as you have to work your way around translating the Dutch word 'gezellig' into some English word depending on the context, because there is no one to one translation.

vI-/-vIp is completely grammatical, in fact Okrand specifically says that in TKD:

This suffix is rarely used with a prefix meaning I or we. Though it is grammatically correct, it is culturally taboo.

Klingon does have a way to express the concept of fear. They may not have a noun for the emotion, but that's the same as many emotions in Klingon. They don't have nouns for love, caring, hatred, disgust, happiness, sadness, depression, etc. Most of these are expressed with verbs instead, just like ghIj and fear. It's not that it's missing, it's just different from how humans express emotions. If you can get the concept from one mind to another then the language contains the necessary concepts.

Klingon doesn't have the concept of cars or lawnmowers in it, but it defiantly has the concept of fear (ghIj/-vIp). All your phrases from the Klingon Way actually show that Klingons completely understand the concept of fear, know how to talk about it and how to use it as an effective tool in battles.

[tesseraktik]

By the way, tesseraktik, what did you do to fraek? Is he assimilated or something?

Assimilated?  No; just adapted

Well qurgh, I considered the construction vI-...-vIp to be ungrammatical.

vI-/-vIp is completely grammatical, in fact Okrand specifically says that in TKD:

This suffix is rarely used with a prefix meaning I or we. Though it is grammatically correct, it is culturally taboo.

One wonders if the taboo also applies to -vIpbe' (not afraid).  It would appear that it doesn't, as there are three instances of it (or, rather, two instances of -vIpbe' and one of -vIpqu'be') on page 49 of TKD, along with explanations of how they might be used.