tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 30 15:25:08 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Stephen's introduction
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Stephen's introduction
- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 17:29:06 -0500
voqHa'wI' writes:
[regarding {pongwIj 'oH pong'e'}
>...Does the topic suffix in that phrase give the same meaning as
>any other occurence [of the suffix], or is it solely for the purpose of the
>construction.
Whether or not the {-'e'} has a meaning besides its being necessary in
a "to be" sentence with a stated subject, it sounds okay to me if I do
the standard "As for..." translation.
> It is dangerous to suggest, but isn't "to be" an intransitive
>verb anyways? One is, and the state that one is in is simply a state tacked
>on to the end of the construct??
jIQochqu'chu'qu'! I don't think this at all!
The way *I* understand Klingon pronouns used as "to be", there is no
"intransitive" interpretation possible; one cannot "just be" as such.
The object of the sentence isn't a "state", it's a thing or a location.
If it were possible to use "to be" intransitively, Okrand wouldn't have
had to come up with the verb {taH} "continue, go on, endure".
>I shouldn't have even tried to say that. It didn't sound right at all.
The expression of the idea sounds fine, but the idea itself is at odds
with my beliefs about the nature of "to be" in Klingon.
>The point being: Is {A 'oH B'e'} the same as {B 'oH A'e'} or different?
If A is a locative, they're certainly different. I think that they are
different meanings in most cases, though I'm not too sure about sentences
using {nuq}.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj