tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 21 18:27:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: About {pong}
- From: HoD trI'Qal <triqal>
- Subject: Re: About {pong}
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 21:27:27 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "tlhIyQa" at Jan 20, 95 06:33:10 pm
tlhIyQavo':
> ghItlhpu' charghwI':
>
> > > ghunchu'wI' pong'egh.
> >
> > Well, verbs with {-'egh} can't have an object until Okrand
> > explains rules he has not yet revealed. Then again, he has not
> > explained the verb {pong} yet, either, since it generally needs
> > two objects, and we don't know how to do that in Klingon.
> >
> > charghwI'
>
> In English, "I name him George" and "I give the name George to him" are
> equivalent. Does this not suggest that in order to translate the sentence into
> Klingon, "George" would be the direct object and "him" the indirect object? TKD
> includes directions for indirect objects. Why not just treat {pong} like any
> other verb which takes an indirect object?
This was one of the things I wa going to email about, that was discussed
a *long* time ago... and which I wanted to bring up again.
For starters, in this case, "him" is the directo object, but "George" is
*not* the indirect object. This contruction has a different grammatical
term, which, unfortunately, not being a linguist and not being able to
find it in my little grammar-book, I can't tell you what it is. (some
form of apposition?). Anyway, this is the way I would solve the problem:
ghaHvaD "George" vIpong.
Looks like the inderect object form, doesn't it?
This, I think has been the majour argument *against* this form... that it
uses the 'indirect object' construction. But, I think this is a
perfectly valid use for -vaD. Why? because -vaD is NOT defined in terms
of how it is used with indirect objects... it is defined as "for,
intended for". Ie, that whatever it is attached to is the intended
recipient of the verb. Now, when I say "We name our dog Max", I doubt
anyone here is going to doubt that that the *dog* is the intended
recipient of the sentence (Just as if I said "I give the god a bone"...
the recipient is still the dog, right?). Okay, so then, if -vaD goes on
the intended recipient, and the intended recipient is still the dog...
why can't I say:
targhvaD "Max" wIpong
Comments? Linguists? (Nick? ~mark?)
(I'm sure I left a few loopholes a mile wide in that logic... let's see
'em guys!)
--HoD trI'Qal
--
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH, qatlh reH HaghtaH HoD Qanqor...?
--HoD trI'Qal Captain T'rkal ---------------------
tlhwD lIy So' IKV Hidden Comet | [email protected]