tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 25 15:16:52 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Grammar Question

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >> I don't think this actually changes what I was saying; I still think
> >> it's cleaner to use {tIn ghIchwIj} than {ghIch tIn vIghaj}.
>
> batlh bIjatlh! Good objection.
>
> SuStel:
> >It's not conclusive proof, of course, but it does show that there are at
> >least a couple of instances where one may "have" or "lack" a body part in
> >Klingon.  I would have no grammatical objection to anyone who wanted to
say
> >/Quch Hab ghaj SoSlI'/.

>
> From: "Lieven (Quvar valer)" <[email protected]>
 > The most important thing in a sentence is the verb, isn't it?
> It describes the "action", and Klingon uses much more verbs than we do in
> Federation standard

That's a common piece of folk wisdom, and true in itself, but it's not what
I'd consider good enough to make any rules about.  Klingon certainly favors
verbs over nouns, but that doesn't mean it must always do so.  Voragh and
others have pointed out a lot of examples where /ghaj/ is used in situations
beyond simple, physical possession.  When it comes to body parts, it seems
clear that one may certainly /ghaj/ or /Hutlh/ them.

David
Stardate 3649.1

Back to archive top level