tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 09 07:07:24 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QaghmeywIj
According to [email protected]:
>
> In a message dated 98-02-05 07:39:27 EST, charghwI' writes regarding peHruS'
> sentence in tlhIngan Hol:
>
> <<
> Nope. To be honest, I'm not sure it would be worth learning how
> to get it right. Even right, it would be ugly. >>
>
> ----peHruS replies----
> I am very disappointed in your attitude, charghwI'. I have always assumed we
> are here to try to get our tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghmey right. I am sure it is
> worth learning how to get things right. Let's keep trying.
I have enough years of working on getting things right and
helping others get things right that you should have little
cause to be disappointed in my attitude. This particular
construction is sufficiently specialized that it is of very
little utility.
We have two examples with no explanations. One applies {-Daq}
to the only availble head noun of a relative clause which acts
as its subject. The same noun acts as locative for the main
clause.
In the other example, {-Daq} is again applied to a noun which
is the only available head noun for a relative clause. This
time the noun is the object of that relative clause. Again, the
same noun acts as locative for the main clause.
There are no other nouns in the relative clauses, so it would
be best to not introduce that layer of complexity. If such
other nouns do exist in the relative clause, we have no
grammatical explanations and no examples on how to deal with
it. It seems we should instead follow the advice Okrand gives
us in his interview in HolQeD with ~mark and break the sentence
into two sentences (making the relative clause a separate
sentence).
Meanwhile, we could do the same thing to express the
construction THIS construction accomplishes, so we really gain
nothing for having this construction. As an extention of the
relative clause, it holds so little as to not be worth
remembering as we cast our meanings into the language.
We also have no examples of other Type 5 suffixes in use.
Likely we tread on thin ice to even extend these unexplained
examples to other Type 5 suffixes.
If I see someone use this grammatical construction and it is
formed along the strict lines of Okrand's examples, I will
understand it. I will rarely if ever use it. I will never
encourage anyone else to use it. I see it as slightly less
useful than {-ghach} or {rIntaH}, having less cause for
existance than either.
Instead, I expect people who are not all that skilled with the
language to leap on it under the false belief that using it
will prove them to be advanced Klingonists and they will
proceed to use it in relative clauses with a second noun. The
result will be ambiguous gibberish and we'll have to tolerate
the long, repeated arguments over whether or not it is
meaningful.
Bandwidth will be consumed. Little will be accomplished. Much
Ado About Nothing.
charghwI'