tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 13 08:28:04 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: definitive noun suffix -na'
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: definitive noun suffix -na'
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 11:15:58 EST
ja' Edy:
> Let's see the CK following exemple:
>"- I need to find A doctor" "Qel vISamnIS".
>
>In this exemple, I want to find any sort of doctor because there
>is nothing especifing what doctor I need. But if I want to
>say: I need to find THE doctor, I need to find an especific doctor.
>In this case I can say: "Qelna' vISamnIS"
No. The type 3 noun suffixes qualify the accuracy of the word being
used. {Qelna'} is a definite doctor, no doubt about it. It's the
opposite idea of {QelHey}, an apparent doctor, maybe, maybe not.
{Qelqoq} goes a bit further, a so-called doctor, not even worthy of
being called a doctor except perhaps sarcastically.
You appear to be confusing the notions of "definite" meaning certainty
and the grammatical concept of a "definite article" such as "the". In
Klingon, there are no articles; there are no words to translate the
"a" and "the" ideas. Each of {Qel}, {Qelna'}, {QelHey}, and {Qelqoq}
can be used in a phrase to mean either "a doctor" or "the doctor",
depending on whether or not context indicates that you're referring to
one specific person.
If you've already established the existence of a specific doctor, you
can say {Qelvetlh vISamnIS} "I must locate that doctor." The type 4
suffixes can serve a purpose similar to a definite article.
-- ghunchu'wI'