tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 26 18:11:59 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Sentence really as object
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Sentence really as object
- Date: Tue, 27 May 97 01:09:33 UT
Stardate 97399.3 mujang charghwI':
> You have a very interesting theory. I have another
> one for you to consider.
reH qechmey chu' vIqelqang.
> Or what if {neH} is caught in an evolution between being the
> second verb of a Sentence As Object construction and becoming a
> verb suffix. It's function nearly fits {-qang}, except that for
> its full versatility, the person doing the wanting needs to be
> independently specified from the subject of the first verb.
> > Here's the sentence again, with some explanatory marks:
> >
> > DaHjaj (verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH.
>
> But notice how little the meaning changes if you change this to:
>
> (DaHjaj verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH.
Actually, this changes it a lot. It's a bit hard to see using this example,
so let me try another:
pe'vIl (verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH
(pe'vIl verengan HoH tlhIngan) vIneH
These are quite different: the first says I do the wanting forcefully, the
second says the killing is done forcefully.
> In most cases, these have the same meaning. Meanwhile, I get a
> strong sense that if there were a way to fit a verb prefix onto
> a verb suffix, the language wants this to become:
>
> DaHjaj verengan *HoHvIneH* tlhIngan.
I suspect that if {neH} were to become a suffix, it would drop the prefix and
act like {-qang}:
DaHjaj verenganvaD tlhIngan *vIHoHmoHneH* jIH.
I don't know exactly how this would work, of course, but I think you'd be
forced to lose a subject you had previously.
> In this way, the verb {neH} can never really own an adverb or a
> time stamp or aspect. This idea is what rationalized for me the
> inability for {neH} to take an aspect marker in this useage.
Agreed with the first part for the purposes of this speculation, but I doubt
the second part. It's not just {neH} that cannot take an aspect marker; no
second verb of a Sentence As Object can. These certainly aren't undergoing a
change into suffixes, since just about any transitive word can be used there!
Since {'e'} and {net} second verbs cannot have an aspect, I don't believe that
{neH}'s similar prohibition can be explained by the evolution idea.
> I
> believe that the only reason {neH} has not become a suffix is
> that need to independently assign the subject to {neH}.
That would be a good reason for this consideration.
> > The bit in parenthesis is what would normally be replaced by {'e'}. This
> > time, according to this speculation, the very sentence itself is the
object.
> >
> > The beauty of this idea is that it explains one of those variations in
> > canon
> > on this topic:
> >
> > reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH
> > I've always wanted to fight a Federation ship. (Spoken by Captain Klaa in
> > Star Trek V.)
> >
> > If he's saying this:
> >
> > reH (DIvI' Duj vISuv) vIneH,
> >
> > it makes perfect sense.
>
> Ahh, but for a Klingon, it also makes sense as:
>
> (reH DIvI' Duj vISuv) vIneH.
>
> "I want to always fight a Federation ship."
But that *doesn't* make sense. He doesn't want to fight a Federation ship
forever. The {reH} quite clearly applies to the wanting, not the fighting, so
I don't think your grouping makes sense.
> Actually, what I believe it REALLY means is, once again:
>
> reH DIvI' Duj *vISuvvIneH*. "Always I want-to-fight a Federation
> ship." I see it as very similar to {reH DIvI' Duj vISuvqang.}
> The similarity is easier to see because the subject of wanting
> and the subject of fighting is the same entity.
I see this, though I think the sentence means "I am always willing to fight a
Federation ship," and not "I am willing to always fight a Klingon ship." The
first looks like (I think)
reH [vISuvqang]
and the second is
[reH vISuv]qang
and I don't think the second one is right.
> > This might even explain why Azetbur apparently says {'e' neHbe' vavoy},
> > when
> > {neH} isnt' supposed to use {'e'}. You need *something* there, and she's
> > not
> > going to repeat the whole sentence, so she uses {'e'}. I imagine this is
> > an
> > acceptable grammatical shortcut for Klingons.
>
> Agreed. Although to me, this use of {neH} feels different, in
> that if you say a sentence, I can't add a suffix to the verb for
> you. I have to make up my own sentence. I can use {'e'} to
> represent your sentence and use a verb with it, and {neH} is
> certainly a verb.
>
> Just as {ta'} is both a verb and a suffix with a similar
> meaning, {neH} is both a nearly-suffix verb and a stand-alone
> verb. I believe Azetbur was using the stand-alone verb here.
> That's why she needed the {'e'}.
>
> So, do you find THIS theory interesting?
Interesting? Yes. Convincing? No. While I'm not convinced about my own
hypothesis, it follows *my* gut feelings about Klingon. (So who's got the
more clever gut?)
And, of course, watch some new canon prove us *both* wrong! :)
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97401.9