tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 09 07:15:35 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

prefixes on pronouns


Let me just briefly step into the thing about verbal prefixes on prounouns
acting as to-be verbs.

Obviously, in general, they can't take prefixes.  The proof of this is
self-evident.  Just take the canonical example of such pronoun usage:

tlhIngan jIH		"I am a Klingon"

If verb prefixes applied, it would have to be:

tlhIngan jIjIH		"I am a Klingon"

But that's not how it's given to us.  We know that pronouns are not verbs,
they are chuvmey.  In the "to-be" context, they get to act like verbs,
including taking verbal suffixes, and it is easiest to just think of them
as verbs when used this way.  But even so, they are still special.  They
are special in that they require an -'e' on their subject, if explicit, and
they are special in that they don't take verbal prefixes.

Now, having said all that, I will point to one exception.

The exception is an unofficial, and, indeed, technically illegal one.  Nobody
knows that better than I.  But it is such a profoundly useful exception, and
one which seems so natural and obvious, and for which there really is no
other alternative, that it goes into my personal *extremely small* list of
things-I'll-look-the-other-way on.

And the exception is:  imperatives.

How would you say:  "Stop whining and be a Klingon!"

I submit:

bIvIngtaH 'e' yImev 'ej tlhIngan yISoH!

Yep, there is no proper defense of it, and, when pushed, I'll readily admit
it is technically illegal.  But it's clear, elegant, and there's just no
other way to do it.  Frankly, I think Okrand would sanction it if it were
brought before him.  Again, I'm willing to look the other way on this one.

				--Krankor

Back to archive top level