tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 19 15:16:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Quotes
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Quotes
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 23:11:18 UT
jatlh Holtej:
> I don't think we have any evidence that shows that we *can*, but there's
> also no rule that says we *can't*. But I tend to avoid this construction.
> It's like the difference between "my killer" and "the me-killer".
>
> muHoHwI' "me-killer"
> HoHwI'wI' "my killer"
>
> The first one emphasizes the individual, the second the action. Here's
> another example. We go to the opera, and I ask you what you though of the
> tenor. Would you say "I liked him singing" or "I liked his singing"? The
> first is like using a prefix on the verb, and the second like using the
> normal possessive constructions. (Though the gerund examples are harder
> to
> show what I mean clearly in Klingon). We're not talking about the
> individual, we're talking about the action.
>
> So, I've always disliked prefixes on /-wI'/'d verbs.
You mean, because this doesn't work well in English, it shouldn't work in
Klingon either? Ummm . . .
I'm willing to go along with the suggestion that {-wI'} is not allowed, but
until it is proven one way or the other, I won't be using it too much. Still,
I don't believe this argument works. The word {muHoHwI'} makes perfect
logical sense, whether or not it is allowed grammatically.
Rather, I'd take this grammatical approach: the prefix {mu-} indicates
third-person subject. What's the subject of this verb? Aha! There isn't
one. In fact, it's not even a verb anymore! It doesn't look like you can add
{-wI'} to verbs which are already acting out parts in sentences, you can only
use the "gerund" form (well, Klingon doesn't really *have* one, but . . .).
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96887.0
P.S. Oh, I've just read ~mark's message saying (more or less, probably more)
the same thing. Well, I'll send this one anyway.