tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 27 12:34:02 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong but..
- From: [email protected] (Ron Van Gurp)
- Subject: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong but..
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:54:20 +0200
>On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, m109 wrote:
>
>
>> > At 03:53 98-04-25 -0700, Natahn Grange wrote:
>> > }janlI' belHa'wI'
>> > }your cruel device
>
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't jan *device* a thing and so does not
>> merit the possesive suffix -lI' rather -lIj as it is not a being capable
>> of language. pojwI' knows this and so would only show the word janlI'
>> not the construction jan + -lI' I suggest you use janlIj as the
>> construction jan + -lIj is the only possible answer that pojwI' could
>> pull up.
>
>This comes up from time to time - though here it seems obvious that lIj is
>better, I'd expect that Klingons lack unanimity on this, as do humans. The
>line between sentience and perceived sentience is blurry enough so that it
>is pretty common to refer to dogs, computers, cars, sea monkeys, lizards
>and whatnot as possesing will and even speech. (but never cats {{:) ) It
>is up to the speaker if s/he intends the creature to be understood as
>sentient.
>
According to 'the book' (TDK) the use of -lI'(and similar possessive
suffixes) is restricted to beings 'capable of speech'. Similar as for the
-pu'/-mey pluralization suffix. 'Sentient' does not seem to be the issue, or
am I missing something? This raises an interesting question (to me at least
:-)): would the computer voice of e.g. Enterprise be addressed as /ghoghlI'/
or /ghoghlIj/ in a sentence like: De'wI', ghoghlI'/ghoghlIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'?
ghonvan HI'rIp
> joel anderson * http://members.aol.com/JPKlingon * [email protected]
> **mIghghachvo' yImej 'ej yIQaQ; roj yInej 'ej Dochvam yItlha'**
> **Depart from evil, and do good; Seek peace, and pursue it**
>
>
>
>