tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:21:57 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)

On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:20:33 -0800 (PST) Terrence Donnelly 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> At 11:04 AM 11/17/97 -0800, SuStel wrote:
> 
> >You cannot say "we Klingons" in Klingon.  You cannot say {maHagh
> >tlhInganpu'} for "We Klingons laugh."  It just don't work that way!  
> 
> Just to pick a nit:  How do we know it doesn't work that way?  Is
> it explicitly forbidden by canon?  It seems like simple apposition
> to me (to those who reply that apposition needs two nouns, just
> think of this as a briefer form of {maHagh maH tlhInganpu'}).  Why
> isn't this phrase legal: {bIQIp SoH qoH} "You, fool, are stupid."

Well, we have examples of nouns here in the third person as 
subject of the verb and we have nouns here as persons addressed, 
not relating to the verb so much as to point out to whom the 
sentence is being said. Apposition generally exists so far as 
two nouns referring to the same entity. We have examples of 
that. Note that I said two NOUNS. This does not seem to be the 
case with pronouns. While pronouns CAN function as nouns in many 
ways, they cannot function as nouns in ALL ways.

Note that {maHagh tlhInganpu'} could as well be said by a 
Ferengi in a crowd of Ferengi taunting a bunch of Klingons. "We 
laugh, Klingons!" The subject is first person, but the address 
is second person. What you seem to seek to do is mix these two 
such that you are speaking with the subject as first person 
plural, but you are speaking to the same people you are 
including as first person plural (except for yourself, of 
course). "We laugh, Klingons." It carries the meaning you seek, 
but not through the grammar you seek.

In other words, the second person plural implied by 
{tlhInganpu'} consists of all the persons other than yourself 
described by the {ma-} in {maHagh}. They are the people you are 
talking to.

Meanwhile, if you are talking to others in the room and you wish 
to explain that those in the room who are Klingon laugh, you 
could just say {Hagh tlhInganpu'.} You are stating the fact. 
Third person does this as well as first person.
  
> I can imagine a situation in which some Klingons are in a room with
> Ferengi, Humans, etc.  Someone comments that a dangerous situation is
> about to occur.  A Klingon replies {Qobmo' maHagh tlhInganpu'}.  To
> simply say {Qobmo' maHagh} might imply that everyone in the room laughs at
> danger, whereas our Klingon wants to emphasis that just the Klingons
> are so cool.

Lots of canon exists to support one simply saying {Hagh 
tlhInganpu'}. Sufficient context exists to let the others know 
that you are referring to the group of Klingons in the room 
including yourself.

> >I, for one, do not find this lack to be in any way troublesome.
> >
> Sure, I can live without it, but if nothing forbids it, what's wrong
> with using it?

Simple. There is no example of it in canon and no mention of it 
in the grammar and the same words in the same order can be 
easily interpreted completely differently (as address instead of 
first person apposition, or whatever this would be called). We 
have rules for interpreting these words and the rules you 
suggest are not among them.
 
> -- ter'eS
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711
> 

charghwI'

Back to archive top level