tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 13 08:09:00 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SuvwI'bom
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SuvwI'bom
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
---Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ja' Qov:
> >I see how I see it, now, too. The way I use it, the subject of to
be,
> >or PTB tends to be the information the questioner already had.
>
> That seems backwards to me. {Dujvetlh 'oH nuq'e'? nIHwI' ghaH
'Iv'e'?}
Now I'd say {nuq 'oH Dujvetlh'e'} and 'Iv ghaH nIHwI''e'}. So we are
backwards.
> You want to know the identity of the ship or the thief. That's what
> you're asking about. That's exactly the information you do *not*
have.
>
> In a "who" or "what" question, I think it's obvious that the question
> word itself should be the topic.
I see the topic as somewhat optional (the reason for my square
brackets).
With context, /'Iv ghaH?/ or /Qov 'oH/ or /nuq 'oH?/ would be
sufficient. I might say <'Iv ghaH?> and then add <...nIHwI''e'> as a
sort of afterthought, if I thought you might not know whom I was
referring to. In a PTB I see the {noun pronoun} as mandatory and
{noun'e'} as an optional addition.
tlhIngan ghaH [matlh'e'].
'Iv chaH [SuchwI'Hey'e'].
> >You've asked about my name, so I give you {Qov 'oH [pongwIj'e']}.
>
> If I've asked about your name, I consider your name to be the topic of
> my question. I do *not* consider the word "your name" as that topic.
> {ponglIj 'oH nuq'e'?}
Ah, quite the opposite to me. You've asked about "my name" you
haven't asked about Qov.
'Iv ghaH loDvetlh'e'? (the man is the topic)
chaq SuvwI' ghaH.
teHbe', *meter reader* ghaH loDvetlh'e'.
bImuj, vavchaj ghaH.
An entire conversation could ensue, with the man as the topic of each
sentence. I'm not going to change your mind on this, but I'm
understanding mine better and I'm more sure of myself now.
I see the topicalized noun as saying, "Consider the noun, it is an X"
or "Given the noun, what/who is it?"
What does Okrand say? "As for the noun, they are X."
I'll understand your sentences, but I'll consider them backwards.
> >You've asked about "Qov," so I give you {pongwIj 'oH [Qov'e']}.
>
> Again, I see it exactly backwards from you. I don't > want to focus
on
> the word {Qov}, I want to focus instead on the answer > to my
question.
> {Qov 'oH nuq'e'?}
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm not being misled by the mandatory > use of
{-'e'} in
> a "to be" sentence. I see it working this way just > by the nature
of a
> Klingon pronoun-as-be.
lu'. maQoch neH. qayajtaH.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com