tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 26 06:57:05 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Language change & staying current
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Language change & staying current
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 98 09:28:50 EST
ja' peHruS:
>mojaq {-lu'} chelnIS mu' peD mu' SIS qoj qelbogh mu'tlheghmey DIqaDpa'
>qaSpu'vIS tera' DIS 1996 jar wa'DIch jaj wa'maH javDIch ghItlh charghwI':
>
>naDev peDqu'pu'mo DujHomwIj vIshoSmeH yIyItqu'nIS.
nuqjatlh? charghwI' mu'mey DaghIHmoHba'ta'. jabbI'IDna'Daj vISamta':
>naDev peDqu'pu'mo' DujHomwIj vIghoSmeH jIyItqu'nIS. loQ Qatlh
>lengvam. 'eqtaHvIS jImej. jIpaSpa' yaHwIjDaq jIpaw, 'ach DaHjaj
>jIghojmoH, vaj DuSaq vIghoSnIS. jIvItqu'qa'. loQ jIpaSchoH.
toH, cha' ben jabbI'ID Damuchqanglaw'. chaq charghwI' DatIch DaneH.
chaq Davaq DaneH. qatlh jabbI'IDvam Damuch? meq yIngu'!
yIleghchu'. <peDqu'pu'mo'> ja'bej. chaq lugh, chaq lughbe'.
lo' lugh wISovbejbe'. <DuSaq vIghoSnIS> ja' je. lughbe' mu'meyvam.
'ej jabbI'IDDaq <muDIllu'taH> vItu' -- lughbe'bej mu'tlheghvam'e'.
rut Qagh charghwI'. reH lugh charghwI' 'e' vIwuvbe' jIH. :-P
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>'ej QAO wIqaDpa' tera' DIS 1995 jar wa'maH cha'DIch jaj cha'maH chorghDIch
>ghItlh ~mark:
>
>That is, I *would* accept "nuq Damuch 'e' vIlegh," not because "what"
>functions the same way, but as a *pair* of sentences: "what do you present?
>I see that." See /thlIngan-Hol/1995/Oct95/0024.html for the
>archive of the letter in which I explained this. Please take a look.
>
>jIghItlhmeH mIw DachoHnISqu'be'; jIlugh'a' 'e vISovchu'be'. vuDwIj neH jIja'.
>'ej "bogh" Dalo'laHbej: mujbe'bej! 'ach mIw latlh DaghovnIS, 'ej meqDaj
>DaSovnIS 'ej DayajnIS, DalaDDI'. bIqImnISbej: jabbI'IDwIj DalIjlaw'pu'!
>bIyu'DI' pIj janglu' 'e' DaqImHa'law'.
>------------------------------------
>chaq choHtaH Holmaj
>chaq choHtaH QubmeH yabmaj mIw
>vaj choHtaH je QIjmeH ghItlhmeymaj
We're *always* refining our understanding of Klingon grammar! It took
*years* before the appropriate interpretation of verbs of saying was
finally appreciated by everyone. {-ghach} had to be explained in
excruciating detail by Marc Okrand himself for people to know how to
use it correctly. We still don't have a generally-agreed-upon way to
talk about the weather; we'll have to wait for a canon example or an
official explanation.
And one day we'll know for sure if questions as objects work in
general, or work only in certain specific cases like "indirect
questions", or if they don't work at all. In the meantime, the best
arguments for them in general are of the form "Questions are sentences
too, so this doesn't break any rules of grammar," which ignores the
fact that we don't have any rules which tell us how to interpret such
a construction. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is also a
sentence which breaks no rules of grammar...
-- ghunchu'wI'