tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 28 04:54:38 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: The FAQ section 3.5 -- charghwI' !?!

Robert Darke (Qorbeq) writes:
>Yikes. I had always kind of assumed that all verbs worked alike. Well, okay,
>not ALL verbs. Transitive and intransitive are obviously different but apart
>from that I'd assumed that I could use any verb prefix with any verb and it
>would make a valid construction.
>
>Now you're telling me that I've got to be careful about what verb I'm using
>with what subject and object .. ??

Yes indeed.  What we label "intransitive" verbs don't *have* objects,
for one thing, so {*vIQuch} is semantically invalid.  There's no real
problem with its syntax, but it doesn't have a reasonable meaning.  A
different problem occurs with words like {tlhuH} -- though we sort of
managed to rationalize it in a game of Scrabble, {HItlhuH} is not the
kind of thing one would normally say, because the object of "breathe"
is not normally a person. :)

It's this second problem that occurs with {jatlh} -- even when we use
its "say" meaning, it appears that it doesn't actually have an object
at all.  As charghwI' pointed out, the only unambiguous examples that
we have of its use with an object-indicating prefix say the one being
spoken to is its object.

>Perhaps Okrand put the "say" version of {jatlh} in the addendum deliberately
>because his original interpretation of {jatlh} to mean "speak (a language)"
>didn't cover it ?

I'd guess it's because {jatlh} "speak" is an appropriate word for one
to use when translating a quote, and English often uses "say" in that
situation.

>I guess what I'm saying is do we have to wait for Okrand to have used a verb
>in the form that we would like to use it before it becomes "correct" ?

For it to be unambiguously and uncontroversially correct, yes we do.

>Okay then -- what if I didn't WANT a direct object ? I'm not saying anything
>to anyone specific, I'm just stating
>
>I said "Qapla'".

{Qapla' jIjatlh} is apparently the correct way to say this.  We have
been doing it wrong for years, it seems.

>"I said Qapla'" has an implied speakee anyhow, doesn't it .. ? I can't
>really be speaking to NOONE can I ?

You can certainly disregard the recipient of your speaking when you
are relating the event.

>> I must show you my heart.
>> tIqwIj Sa'angnIS.
>>
>> You would expect:
>>
>> tlhIHvaD tIqwIj vI'angnIS.
>>
>> But that's not what Okrand wrote. Get used to it.
>
>
>I would love to agree with you but most of the phrases in TKW are idiomatic.
>I'd not trust them as a definitive example of the correct way to phrase
>everyday Klingon -- Okrand regularly says that "traditional" sentences can
>be quite removed from the proper sentence structure that we're supposed to
>be using.

The same sort of verb-prefix-indicates-indirect-object "shorthand"
appears in the audiotapes as well: {...chaw' HInob...} "...give me
a permit..." for example.

>Would
>
>{tlhIHvaD tIqwIj vI'angnIS}
>
>be wrong then ? Or is it just another way of writing the same thing ?
>[...]
>I'll assume that the answer to the above question is "yes, both are correct"
>then.

Yes, both are correct.  The longer one follows the rules given in TKD,
while the shorter one follows rules not written down anywhere official
(at least not *published*).  Because of this, I prefer not to use what
I consider to be the less formal "shorthand" construction.  The longer
way is certainly correct; the shorter way is obviously used, but still
might not be perfectly grammatical.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level