tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 26 06:22:39 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Prepositions
According to [email protected]:
...
> I've noticed a definite trend toward analepsis, or using a noun first in a
> sentence and a pronoun which stands for it later in a sentence.
TKD bottom of page 61: "It is possible, however, to use
pronouns rather than nouns in the SECOND of the joined
sentences." (My emphasis) This has been the foundation on which
I've tended to use explicit nouns first, then replaced them
with pronouns later in the sentence. It also seems more natural
to do it this way, since then the pronouns act as they are
designed to act, as placeholders for more explicit nouns.
> The basic
> object-verb-subject structure is easy enough to grasp and use; however, when
> the sentences have relative phrases, where should the subject and/or object
> appear? And where should the pronouns which stand in their steads appear?
Each verb has its object placed before it and its subject
placed after it, whether the verb is a main verb or a dependent
one. For relative clauses, begin by placing the head noun in
its appropriate position for the main verb, then place the verb
with {-bogh} so that it preceeds or follows its head noun
appropriate for its status as subject or object. Examples:
neppu'bogh yaS vIqIp.
yaS jaylu'pu'bogh vIqIp.
muqIp neppu'bogh yaS.
muqIp yaS jaylu'pu'bogh.
There are times when complex sentences can become ambiguous
because a noun can appear to be either the subject of one
clause or the object or another. Usually, rethinking the
structure of the sentence, this can be avoided, but sometimes
it cannot. All languages have some ambiguity.
> Is <QujDI' (chaH) tlhejchuq loDHompu'> any less correct or clear than <QujDI'
> loDHompu' tlhejchuq (chaH)>?
I think the former is stylistically flawed, though not
grammatically flawed. It is a question of degree. The former is
ugly, though comprehendible.
> peHruS said: nItlhDajDaq Qeb ghajbe'taHvIS be'vetlh leghpu'mo' Human vaj
> nayta' be' 'e' Sovbe' ghaH.
>
> yoDtargh replied: Note that {Human} and {ghaH} can refer to a human of either
> gender. To specify a "man", you could use {loD}. You could also substitute
> {ghaj} with {tuQ}.
>
> I say that the reason lies in the ring not being on her finger. Therefore:
> leghDI' loD nItlhDajDaq Qeb tuQbe'taHmo' be' vay' nayta' 'e' Sovbe'.
Remember that locatives belong BEFORE the verbs they serve, and
objects similarly belong BEFORE their verbs. What does the man
see here and where is he seeing it? Your sentence is quite
scrambled.
> This previous statement is a perfect example analepsis and prolepsis:
Ummm. That sentence is not a perfect example of anything. It
was an attempt at one grammatical point lost in the absence of
good basic sentence structure.
...
> I can't think of anything to represent the area INSIDE something. Ideas
> anyone? Because these ideas are nouns, they are generally used with the
> locative <-Daq>.
Check out the verb {ngaS}. The point here is that Klingon lacks
the CONCEPT of a preposition and instead conveys the concepts
for which we use prepositions within other grammatical
constructions. Some verbs imply prepositions, like {ngaS} and
{ghoS}, while some nouns imply prepositions, like {Dop} and
{Dung}. Some noun suffixes imply prepositions, like {-Daq} and
{-vo'}. Okrand was trying to create a langauge alien to most
human languages, and most importantly, English. English
accomplishes a lot with "helping words" that Klingon doesn't
use. Instead, Klingon has a rich set of affixes and uses a lot
of the information in its verbs and nouns which is wasted in
English because of that langauge's higher degree of redundency.
Prepositions as a class belong to this group of English
"helping words" whose concepts are carried through several
different means in Klingon, and probably more than any other
single class of helping word, requires approaching translation
of a whole sentence on a case-by-case basis rather than by
attempting to make a recipe book of tools for translating each
preposition into a Klingon word or affix.
I'm still enjoying {qachDop bachmeH puqHom, chab baH ghaH.} It
is refreshing to face this kind of recasting a concept using
the strength of the tools of the language, rather than
strangling the sentence, trying to force it into a form using
less appropriate tools.
> Brad
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |