tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 03 20:48:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: jajlo'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: jajlo'
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 00:03:54 UT
jatlh mIqIraH:
> Oliver Stoll wrote:
> >
> > QovvaD wanI' vIja'pu'.
> >
> > as in "I have told Qov about the event", or "I have reported the
> > event to Qov".
If we for the moment assume that the person to whom you are speaking must be
the object of {ja'}, then all we have to do is change the verb:
QovvaD wanI' vIDelpu'.
> We have canon to show that this doesn't work...
Well, we don't have canon showing that, we have canon showing that something
else *does* work. Oliver Stoll's sentence is not proven wrong.
> qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'
> I told you, "Don't interrupt me!"
>
> TKD, pg. 67
>
> Based on this example, it is clear (to me at least) that verbs of saying
> do not seem to function in the way you describe. They seem to always
> take a direct quotation, though you could also translate it as "I told
> you not to interrupt me," but that is SLIGHTLY inaccurate.
Actually, this *is* how Okrand translates this very sentence.
> I would
> assume all verbs of saying work this way. The only reason {jatlh} can
> take a language as an object is because it has two definitions, a fact a
> lot of people seem to have overlooked:
>
> jatlh: speak (v) [as in "I speak Klignon," or "Do you speak Spanish?"]
> jatlh: say (v) [no examples of {jatlh} used this way, but it is in the
> Addendum]
>
> Marc Okrand clearly had a reason for putting this definition in, so I
> would hazard to guess that this is a typical verb of saying, like
> {ja'}. Until we get some canon, I'd avoid using this in any far-out
> ways, though.
We have canon, from Power Klingon:
{'avwI'vaD jatlh qama' -- jI'oj} (And a couple of similar examples from the
same joke.)
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97423.7