tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 18 12:45:29 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Verbs of Saying



At 08:29 AM 8/18/98 -0700, Qov wrote:
>---qe'San - Jon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
[pe'..]
>> After reading the above I couldn't help thinking about {pong (v)}
>again.
>> 
>> It is repeatedly said that we don't know how the verb is used as we
>> haven't been given any cannon examples. I'm sorry for bringing it up
>> again but I thought, why isn't pong considered to be a verb of saying?
>> 
>> If it were treated as such then we do have cannon examples as referred
>> to {jatlh} etc.  
>
>This is one of the most creative suggestions I've ever seen for /pong/. 
>It's also succint, quite clear to read and doesn't actually propose
>any new grammar.  By making the name a separate utterance -- and a
>name can definitely be a separate utterance, if only in the vocative
>(when you are calling someone) -- you sidestep the whole problem of
>where to put a second object.  
>
>This goes along with another suggestion I've seen and understood:
>
>/vIponglu'DI' Qov jatlhlu'/
>
>> In other words the following sentences might
>> translate as:
>> 
>> I call my pet 'lunch'  -     {SajDaj  vIpong  .  megh}  
>>                       or  {megh  .  SajDaj  vIpong}
>> 
>> The crew call the ship 'garbage scow'  -  
>> {Duj  lupong  beqpu'  .  veQDuj }  .
>> 
>>  Kahless called his new weapon 'the sword of honour'  -
>> {nuH chu'Daj  pongpu'  qeylIS'e'  .  batlh  'etlh }  .
>
>/pongpu'/ implies to me that someone later changed the name.  Just
>/pong/ for simple past tense.
>
>> I am called qe'San (some call me qe'San) - 
>> {vIponglu'  .  qe'San }  ????.
>
>Neat suggestion.  I like it.  I don't think it violates anything. It
>doesn't mean it's the way Klingons say it, but I think they would be
>able to understand it.

But in these cases, /pong/ has an object, and an utterance, and I got
the implication from the discussion of /jatlh/ that a verb of saying
could have either an object or an accompanying utterance, but not
both.  Or would you consider legal something like ?/"bImej vIneH" 
mu'tlhegh vIjatlh/ (translating, I guess as "'I want to leave' I 
speak a sentence")?

-- ter'eS



Back to archive top level