tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 27 21:42:01 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIjatlh 'e' yImev
On Thu, 27 Apr 1995 [email protected] wrote:
> We have been convoluting the Klingon language long enough. From a lingui=
> st
> who has travelled the world and scratched the surface of 28 languages, 5 =
> of
> which I am comfortable in, and in that my MA is in language arts, I hereb=
> y
> claim that beings with the intelligence to speak language logically devis=
> e
> simple means for expressing themselves.
cha'maH chorgh Hol DaHaD'a'? Doj! nuq Holmey DaHaD'a'?
> My first project is: Although TDK p.65, =A76.2.5 states that <'e'> is a
> relative pronoun connecting sentences as objects to verbs mainly having t=
> o do
> with speech or knowledge, TKD p.172, Appendix, Phrases clearly uses the
> pronoun <'e'> as a connector after <yImev>, stop doing something. Now th=
> is
> <'e'> cannot be so simply translated as "that." This sentence is more li=
> ke
> "Stop [your] speaking." Thus, I contend that one of my previous attempts=
> at
> making up a Klingon sentence may yet have merit: <moQ luQuj matlh mara j=
> e
> 'e' jeS worgh> was intended to mean "Worf participated in playing ball wi=
> th
> Maltz and Mara."
{'e'} is a pronoun which refers the previous sentence (not just those
pertaining to speech or knowledge). The verb which uses {'e'} as an
object needs to be a transitive verb.
In {bIjatlh 'e' yImev}, {'e'} is the object of {yImev} and refers to the
previous sentence {bIjalth}. (Literally: "You are speaking; stop that!"
or simply: "Stop speaking!")
I read this as "Worf participates that Maltz and Mara play the ball".
The first problem is that {jeS} is not clearly a transitive verb. The
second problem is whether {moQ} can be the object of {Quj}. It would
work, if {moQ} didn't refer to a ball, but to the name of a game
which could be played.
Although there are several different ways to say this. I would probably
say something like: QujDI' matlh mara je tlhej wo'rIv moQHom lulo'taHvIS.
> No. 2: Why must we contort our brains into such constructions as
> <machHa'ghach> when there is already precedence for <tIntaHghach>? <-taH=
> > is
> used several times in the <-ghach> construction examples. Furthermore,
> <machHa'> seems to come across as the "undoing of being little." Even
> <machbe'ghach>, whether better or worse, seems to come across as "[the] n=
> ot
> being small."
I agree with you here.
> No. 3: <puq latlh> vs. <latlh puq>. Surprise!!! Klingon DOES have
> adjectives, TKD pp.49-50, =A74.4. Contrary to pure adjectival use as in
> English (which I arguably have called Federation Standard, viz. Michael a=
> nd
> Denise Okuda's Star Trek Chronology), the Klingon grammarians' concept of=
>
> adjectives seems to the Terran to be noun-noun constructions. In that No=
> un 1
> possesses Noun 2, the adjective-noun 2 no longer only states (stative ver=
> b =3D
> adjective, viz Chinese, etc.) the attributes of Noun 1 but also is the
> possessed noun. Thus, <puq mach> does mean "little child." More literal=
> ly,
> it means "the little[ness] of the child." Now, <puq latlh> is "the
> additionality of a child," ergo "an additional child." Although the Klin=
> gon
> grammarians claim that this is a Noun 1-Noun 2 construct, Terrans will do=
>
> well to look upon the second noun (???) as an adjective while learning th=
> e
> nuances of "feeling" the Klingon language.
In a noun-noun construction, the second noun does not adjectivally
describe the first noun. {SuvwI' taj} means "the knife of the warrior"
or "the warrior's knife" not the "knife warrior".
> No. 4: Textual analysis has led me to "discover" some words that are not=
> in
> TKD. <peH> lupeH mu'meyvam
mu'vam vISovbe'chu'. nuq 'oH <peH>'e' qatlhobta'? chojangbe'pu'. vaj
qatlhobqa' nuq 'oS <peH>?
> peHruS
yoDtargh