1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Klingon
  4. >
  5. "Sargh 'oH Ha'DIbaHvetlh'e'."

"Sargh 'oH Ha'DIbaHvetlh'e'."

Translation:That animal is a sark.

March 15, 2018



It's a Klingon animal that resembles an Earth horse.


So, if I wanted to make this sentence negative, could I suffix -be' to either Sargh or 'oH?


Indeed you CAN use -be' to turn this sentence into a negative statement. The -be' suffix would need to go on the verb (or in this case, the pronoun acting as the verb). So the sentence would be:

Sargh 'oHbe' Ha'DIbaHvetlh'e'. "That animal is not a sark."


The question I had before this one told me that "Ha'DIbaH" was "meat". Is meat and animal the same word? that's very klingon, but definitely made answering this question confusing.


Is meat and animal the same word?



Why is the suffix velth used here for a single animal rather than vam? The notes say that vam translates as 'this/that' (singular) and velth translates as these/those (plural). I have seen this done in previous questions too.


The notes say that vam translates as 'this/that' (singular) and velth translates as these/those (plural).

No, that's not what the notes say.

They say:

"This, these" and "that, those" uses noun suffixes: -vam and -vetlh, respectively: Ha'DIbaHvam "this animal", Ha'DIbaHmeyvetlh "those animals".

Whether "this" or "these" is appropriate as a translation of -vam depends on whether the noun is singular or plural; similarly with "that" or "those" for -vetlh.

So -vam is for "this" or "these" (close things), and -vetlh is for "that" or "those" (far things). Nothing to do with how many things there are.

Do you have a suggestion for a more understandable wording?


Thank you for explaining. :) I copied down some notes in a more simplified form and now realise that I copied this down wrong. jIHvIyaj ej vIghojtaH.

Learn Klingon in just 5 minutes a day. For free.