tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 30 15:36:53 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: QutneS ghIth: Part 3
>Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 11:28:43 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>According to [email protected]:
>> pagh jatlh vaj 'ej quS chIm vIba'ta'.
>Lose the {-ta'}. This is still part of the story line, not
>something that was accomplished BEFORE this point in the story
>line.
I'd say "quS chImDaq jIba'"; we do have some evidence (quSDaq ba'lu''a'?)
that chairs are sat *in*, not just used as the object of "ba'".
>> "nuq bonejneS SoH juplI' je?"
>Interesting point here. The {bo-} seems to address both people
>together in the second person, but {SoH juplI' je} addresses
>them individually, one in the second person and one in the
>third. Does anyone with more experience with languages with
>distinct singular vs. plural second person pronouns want to
>shed light on this?
Well. It's an interesting one, I'd say. The simple answer, and the one
I'm inclined to follow in Klingon, is that this is correct usage. After
all, "tlhIH" is "those plural addressed", and often considered in many
languages to be "you and another" (cf. Cherokee, charghwI'). I can see how
you're saying it's different from "maH" being "jIH SoSwI' je", since "maH"
need not have the same sense of all the members being first person as you
might expect tlhIH to be all second person (man, I'm explaining this really
poorly. It's a tough concept, and it keeps shifting when I think about
it). Whatever. I'm inclined to buy it as is.
~mark