tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 30 18:09:13 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: {-chuq}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: {-chuq}
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 94 21:09:04 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Igor Nekyha" at Sep 29, 94 12:44 pm
According to Igor Nekyha:
>
>
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> >Date: Tue, 27 Sep 94 20:30:22 EDT
> >According to Igor Nekyha:
> >>
> >> As a beginner, I'm probably missing something, but why not just say:
> >>
> >> peghmey niHta' tera'nganvo' romuluSnganvo' je
> >
> >Yes, you are a beginner and you are missing something...
>
> It is possible to interpret this in a way which does make sense and which is
> consistent with the descriptions in TKD. I didn't realise that other people
> weren't interpreting it that way.
Trust me. Any one person can make up something that violates
grammatical rules and say that they personally find it
meaningful. That does not make it consistent with the language
such that a different person speaking the same language would
understand them.
> >> There's nothing I can find in TKD which says that subjects can't take the -v
> o
> >'
> >> suffix, though I admit there may not be many situations in which it would
> >> be appropriate.
> >>
> >> --
> >> EEG
> >
> >Read 3.3.5 again, especially at the top of page 27. "Similarly,
> >in Klingon, nouns which indicate SOMETHING OTHER THAN SUBJECT
> >OR OBJECT usually must have some special indication of exactly
> >what their function is. Unlike English, this is accomplished BY
> >USING SUFFIXES." (My emphasis) Here, he is telling you that
> >type 5 noun suffixes are for nouns which are not subjects or
> >objects.
>
> He is not ruling out putting type 5 suffixes on the subject, just saying that
> you usually need them on the extra nouns in a sentence.
>
> --
> EEG
I think you are making a rather unique interpretation of that
section of TKD. I'd be interested if anyone else agrees with
you. I don't. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or flippant. I
have listened to your explanation, gone back to TKD and reread
the appropriate sections and as one experienced with the
language I have to tell you that you are simply wrong.
This is said less to embarrass you now than to help you avoid
embarrassment in the future, as you create your own dialect
that misuses Type 5 noun suffixes. The entire purpose of the
Type 5 suffix is to set apart nouns so they are not confused
with subjects and objects.
Going back to TKD, he begins the section on Type 5 suffixes:
"These suffixes indicate something about the function of the
noun in the sentence..."
"Subjects and objects in Klingon are likewise [meaning, "like
English"] indicated by word order..."
"In other instances [other than subject or object], English
indicates the function of nouns in a sentence by adding words,
particularly prepositions..."
"Similarly [instances other than subject or object], in
Klingon, nouns which indicate something other than subject or
object usually must have some indication of exactly what their
function is. Unlike English, this is accomplished by using
suffixes."
Note that the name of the Type 5 suffix is "Syntactic markers".
The suffix exists to tell you what purpose the noun has in the
sentence. There is no Type 5 suffix for subject or object. Any
noun with any Type 5 suffix cannot be a subject or an object.
Believe it. If I were wrong on this, the regular grammarians
would be quick to point out my error. In fact, I invite that,
because if you are somehow correct in this, then I have an
essential misunderstanding of the language and I would like to
have it set straight.
charghwI'