tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 17 09:32:02 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

KLBC - DochHommey

I didn't want to take up bandwidth with this. If you feel others would 
benefit from these points, please feel free to post it.

I appreciate your comments on my introductory posting:

> > tlhIngan Hol BBSDaq vIchu'
> In this sentence, the prefix {vI-} would indicate that the verb {chu'} 
> has a direct object.  Since the verb in your sentence has no object,
> you would use {jIchu'} instead.  {tlhIngan Hol BBSDaq} is not the object
> of the verb, it simply states where {jIchu'} is taking place.

So, am I correct in concluding that a verb with an indirect object 
(ie locative) is treated as having NO object? Would this apply to ALL
Type 5 noun suffuxes? I would think so.

I think a statement as an object would be treated as a direct object 
because the actual object is the pronoun {'e'}. 
For example: {bISopDI' tera'ngan Darur 'e' vItu'}

DaQtIq wrote a little story on 4/14/95 which raised a couple questions. 
> {qeylIS vavwI' je vInajDI' vIvem}
   How do I say "I dreamed about someone"? {bInajtaHvIS ghot vIghompu'} ?
   This statement should then read: 
   {bInajtaHvIS qeylIS vavwI' vIghompu'DI' jIvem} 

> {vIHoHpa' nIH ghopwIj murIQmoH}
   If the object is a part of my body, should I say {ghopwIj rIQmoH} ?

On 4/14/95, yoDtargh wrote:
> As a side note, I noticed an apparent mistake in TKD, p. 171. It 
> translates "Always trust your instincts" as {Duj tIvoqtaH} 
> ({-taH} continuous).  Sec. 3.3.2. says inherently plural nouns should 
> receive singular verb prefixes, so it seems to me that {tI-} in the 
> example on p. 171 should probably be {yI-} i.e. Duj yIvoqtaH.

Drawing a Terran analogy to an extraterrestrial language is always 
dangerous, but many languages treat "plural" nouns as singular - 
scissors and pants are two examples from English. Even though we THINK
of these as singular, we still treat them as plurals - "My pants ARE 
tight", not "My pants IS tight". That said, I don't think we want to 
extend English construction to tlhIngan Hol. We could just as easily say 
"My legware is tight". In other words, I completely agree with your 
citation from TKD 3.3.2.

A personal note to charghwI':

bIrop bIghItlh 'e' vIlaD jI'IQmoHpu'
ropmo' Heghchugh 'avwI' Hegh batlh 'oHbe'
may'Daq rIQpu'mo' ropchugh 'avwI' - batlh 'oHvetlh
bIpIvqa' 'e' vItul

Brad

Back to archive top level