1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Klingon
  4. >
  5. Duras and Worf fought


Duras and Worf fought

This one says: Translate from Klingon Duras fought Worf: In normal regular joe to convey what it says: you certainly should be able to say: Duras and Worf fought. Though I suppose that's a limit to DuoLinugua Then again I also tried to say that effin idiot fought Worf. Which is possible right of Klingons as written and as Shown in Startrek...though I suspect DuoLingua preffers to be a bit less sassy. sigh.

June 25, 2019



The verb Suv has been used many times in Okrand's canon, and I don't think it has ever been used such that plural subjects fight each other without a reflexive suffix. We've seen plural subjects that fight together or in parallel (qa' wIje'meH maSuv We fight to enrich the spirit, TKW). The object of Suv is the entity the subject is fighting.

If you say Suv DuraS wo'rIv je, you're saying that both Duras and Worf engage in fighting, but you're not saying they necessarily fight each other. That would be Suvchuq DuraS wo'rIv je.


Are you saying that it's bassicaly to say something like: A klingon hit the door. Or better: Food fell on the floor?


I don't understand your question.

lojmIt qIppu' tlhIngan.
A Klingon hit the door (e.g., struck it with a hand)

lojmIt ngeQpu' tlhIngan.
A Klingon hit the door (collided with it)

raSDaq pumpu' Soj.
Food fell on the floor.


I think you are overthinking my question. If Duras fought Worf. I had orginally answered: Duras and Worf Faught. I was asking if for learning reasons: it's better to express that as just Duras faught worf. I was just asking is that because only one person was doing something. I was trying to think of a common day real examples as to where one person (or thing) does something Sorry if that confused you.


Sometimes we choose not to allow the answers to be the full breadth of possible ways to express a concept. In English "Duras fought Worf," "Worf fought Duras," and Worf and Duras fought," are all used to express the same basic idea. However, grammatically they actually express fine nuances. In the first one we do not actually say that Worf fought back, but in English we typically assume it. In the second we do not actually say that Duras fought back, but in English we typically assume it. In the third, it is clear that both Worf and Duras fought, but it is not clear whether they fought each other or whether they, together, fought someone else - we can make it clearer by adding "each other" to the end of the sentence.

In Klingon the first two sentences have an almost exact equivalence to the English in that wo'rIv Suv DuraS indicates that Duras fought, but does not make it clear if Worf reciprocated. Similarly DuraS Suv wo'rIv does not make it clear if Duras reciprocated. Because the sentences have exactly the same kind of nuances, we can be very specific and say that these two sentences are exact translations and thus eliminate "similar" translations as not being exactly the same.

On the other hand, Suv wo'rIv DuraS je does not have the same ambiguity as the English. There is a stronger implication that they fought side by side against some other enemy. The -chuq suffix can be used to change this and make it clear that they fought each other. Thus, these two versions of the sentence have very different meanings and must be separated in their presentations.

I can certainly see how English speakers may not be used to paying attention to such fine subtleties of how they use English, but if we want to carefully teach these subtleties in the Klingon, we must ask English speakers to pay attention to those details while learning the language.


Ah! Coolness! thanks!

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