tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 18 21:56:03 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verbs of Saying
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Verbs of Saying
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:58:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Terrence Donnelly
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
We have no canon of it being used as such. Instead, we have one
example of it being used with the name as the direct object and
the thing being named as indirect object. This is not nearly
like a verb of saying.
> >> If it were treated as such then we do have cannon examples as referred
> >> to {jatlh} etc.
In a word: "No."
> >This is one of the most creative suggestions I've ever seen for /pong/.
Creative, yes. Justifiable, no.
> >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.
Well, this works, except for the inconvenient fact that we do
have one canon example and that uses the name as a direct
object. "Utterances" as you call them (though I think the term
"direct quotation" is a bit more accurate) are grammatically
independant of the verb of saying. The name is not. That breaks
any relationship between {pong} and words like {jatlh} or {ja'}.
> >This goes along with another suggestion I've seen and understood:
> >
> >/vIponglu'DI' Qov jatlhlu'/
This is odd wording, given the canon example we do have for
{pong}. You are using the "call" gloss in the definition to be a
kind of vague vocalization and then you use {jatlh} to specify
what name it is you vocalize when you are calling. The only
example we have so far points to a different way of saying what
you seek to say:
jIHvaD Qov lathlu'.
In theory, some would argue that might be shortened with the
prefix shortcut to:
Qov vIjatlhlu'.
Meanwhile, that uses that really ugly combination of {vI--lu'}
while using the prefix shortcut for an indirect object. That
combination makes my stomach churn. There's nothing wrong with
using the disagreement between an explicit 3rd person direct
object and a prefix-implied first or second person as a shortcut
to point to the indirect object. There is nothing wrong with
combining {vI-} and {-lu'}. There is a lot wrong with doing both
at the same time.
As for my own useage of {pong}, I'd say things like:
charghwI' mupong tlhInganpu', 'ach *Will* mupong tera'nganpu'.
roD Qo'noSDaq jIHvaD charghwI' ponglu'.
> >> In other words the following sentences might
> >> translate as:
> >>
> >> I call my pet 'lunch' - {SajDaj vIpong . megh}
> >> or {megh . SajDaj vIpong}
This does not make sense in the context of {pong} as we've seen
it used by Okrand. None at all.
> >> The crew call the ship 'garbage scow' -
> >> {Duj lupong beqpu' . veQDuj } .
Dap.
> >> Kahless called his new weapon 'the sword of honour' -
> >> {nuH chu'Daj pongpu' qeylIS'e' . batlh 'etlh } .
qeylIS mu'tlheghmey QaQ law' mutlheghmeyvam QaQ puS net tul.
> >/pongpu'/ implies to me that someone later changed the name. Just
> >/pong/ for simple past tense.
{pongpu'} tends to make me suspect that the person named is
dead. I have not heard of Klingons changing their names. That
would be devious and dishonorable, likely the behavior of a
Ferengi dog seeking to escape his duty to his family to bear the
responsibilty for his ancestor's deeds!
> >> I am called qe'San (some call me qe'San) -
> >> {vIponglu' . qe'San } ????.
This is ugly because of {vI--lu'} and completely impenetrable
because of the separation as two mu'tlheghqoq of the verb and
its rightful direct object.
> >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.
Our opinions differ. I respect your dedication to the language,
even while I think you are completely wrong in this single
instance.
> But in these cases, /pong/ has an object, and an utterance,
{pong} has no "utterance". It has a direct object. That direct
object is the name. It also has an indirect object. That
indirect object is the thing or person being named. Is that
really all that difficult to grasp? Is it not obviously
different from a direct quotation?
> 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.
Well, jatlh doesn't have "utterances". It has direct quotations,
and they are grammatically independant of the verb whether or
not it has an object. {ja'} is actually clearer on this, since
the object is the person addressed:
qaja' <qama'pu' vIneH!>
It would indeed be strange to use {jatlh} with a direct object
and a direct quotation, since its direct objects tend to be
nouns like {Hol} or {SoQ}, which hardly lend themselves to
combining with direct quotations, unless you take it to be
something like an appositive.
SoQ jatlh *Abraham Lincoln* <Sochben loSlogh qaSpu' cha'maH DIS
wo' chu' chenmoHDI' no'ma'...>
> Or would you consider legal something like ?/"bImej vIneH"
> mu'tlhegh vIjatlh/ (translating, I guess as "'I want to leave' I
> speak a sentence")?
If I accepted it, I'd translate it as:
"I said the sentence, 'I want to leave.'" When you translate,
you try to make the translation grammatically correct in the
language you translate into. Either {mu'tlhegh} is an apposition
for the quotation (which is still grammatically independant of
{jatlh}, or this is wrong by all examples we have.
> -- ter'eS
charghwI'