tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 24 04:49:46 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-neS
- From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger)
- Subject: -neS
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 21:22:10
uu> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <ur-valhalla!cs.columbia.edu!shoulson>
uu> Subject: -neS
>I prefer the more context sensative translation of his TKD examples.
>It also seems to me that {-neS} used that way would only apply to verbs
>that take an object (even though it doesn't explicitly state that in TKD).
uu> Not so. What do objects have to do with anything? Even in the "your
uu> honor" mode, you can have that without objects. Note canon
uu> counterexamples: "DojneS mIplIj"/"Your wealth is impressive (your
Umm... ummm.. HIvqa' veqlargh!
uu> Note, too, that the person addressed has very little place in
uu> these sentences.
Perhaps that's what threw me off. This suffix is used only in direct
conversation... even if the sentence has nothing to do with the listener.
uu> I'd bet that you could even say something like "QIpneS
uu> loDnI'wI'" for "my brother is stupid, your honor" (or rather "my
uu> brother is stupid" spoken respectfully to the hearer).
In retrospect, I think what bothers me most is that tacking "your honor" onto
a sentence is just too easy. Something inside me wants to make this a
complicated thing, and force the English into a convoluted mess. On glancing
at the examples alone, I would have tried to make {QIpneS loDnI'wI'} into
something like "My brother has the honor of being stupid", but that's not what
it's all about, is it? Perhaps instead of "honorific", Okrand should have
defined {-neS} as "deference marker".
In any case, I have something new to think about.
Qob
... We now return to BATTLECRUISER: VENGEANCE, already in progress.