tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 06 19:37:41 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SuvwI'bom
ja' Qermaq:
>Who is the President of the United States?
>The President of the United States is who?
>
>These two sentences are asking the same thing - I know that someone fits
>this description, but who is it?
>
>When one is looking for this type of info, it should not matter what order
>we put the particles of the Klingon sentence in. <HoDlI' ghaH nuq'e'?> <nuq
>ghaH HoDlI''e'?> - these are synonymous to me. What is the difference? How
>is this different than the above English sentences?
I think the Klingon and English sentences *are* different, because there
is no verb "to be" in Klingon. To express identity in Klingon, I use the
word {rap}.
>Now, if we say "A square is a rectangle" we are speaking of a different
>relationship. Before "is" meant "is identical to," while here "is" means
>"belongs to the set of." If we are asking about that specific relationship,
>then I see how order is important. But without that subset relationship,
>order is perhaps unimportant; but: "Clinton is a President of the United
>States." "A President of the United States is Clinton." Both are equally
>meaningful. Not all Presidents are Bill Clinton, but either order of asking
>is correct. Unless Klingon "to be" constructions work totally in a way I am
>ignorant of, I really don't understand how order comes into play here.
I'm *trying* to treat pronouns as "to be" as the "belongs to the set of"
instead of "is identical to". That's my whole thesis! Because of the way
Klingon "to be" constructions are explained in TKD 6.3, I don't see them
as indicating identity.
>Yes, if I am something, it is unusual to say "Something is me." But the
>meaning is identical. How is Klingon different? And how do we know?
I don't see them as identical in Klingon. Obviously, we *don't* know how
Klingon is different, but I think it is.
-- ghunchu'wI'