tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 02 06:46:20 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: 'e' / about

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

From: "Dar'Qang" <[email protected]>

> <tlhIngan Hol'e' SoQ vImuch>
> I don't understand the (grammatical) part of the sentence played by
> {tlhIngan Hol'e'}.
>
> I see:
>
> Subject -> "jIH"
> Object  -> SoQ
> verb     -> much
>
> And no way to include {tlhIngan Hol'e'} into the sentence once a noun-noun
> construction becomes illegal.

QeS lagh has already answered this, but I think he missed the point of
Dar'Qang's question.  Dar'Qang is not asking about the legality of putting a
Type 5 suffix on the first noun of a noun-noun construction, he's asking
what rule allows /tlhIngan Hol'e'/ to hover out there before the object.

TKD p. 60: "Any noun in the sentence indicating something other than subject
or object comes first, before the object noun.  Such nouns usually end in a
Type 5 noun suffix . . . ."

In the sentence in question, /tlhIngan Hol'e'/ is not serving as subject or
object, so it goes before the object noun.  Captain Krankor was the first to
call words in this position "header" words.

Now, you can't throw any old words in there willy-nilly.  If you do that,
there will be no indication of their meaning beyond not-subject-not-object.
This is why most such words include Type 5 suffixes: these suffixes indicate
the semantic role of the word.

There are two known classes of nouns that can be used in the header area
without Type 5 suffixes: the three special locative nouns (naDev, pa'
"thereabouts", Dat) and words indicating time.  (Words indicating time are
said in the Addendum to tend to come before any others.)  The first class is
an exception because their meanings already include a locative concept, and
the second are an exception because their meanings already include a
time-context.

Could other, non-suffixed words be used as headers?  Maybe, but we haven't
obviously seen any so far.

Now back to our example sentence.  /tlhIngan Hol'e' SoQ vImuch/.  /tlhIngan
Hol'e'/ is not the subject or object of this sentence.  Its semantic role is
that of topic, indicated by the /-'e'/ suffix.  Therefore, we can put
/tlhIngan Hol'e'/ into the header area and it will be understood: it
indicates something other than subject or object, and its semantic role in
the sentence is unambiguous.

We have one unambiguous example of /-'e'/ indicating a topic:

qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.
You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy.  (Star Trek 5)
Literally, "In the galaxy, regarding warrior(s), you are the most
wonderful."

This sentence does not have a subject or object because it is a law'/puS
construction.  But it does have non-subject-non-object (and non-law'/puS)
nouns in it, and these go at the beginning.  These are /qIbDaq/ "in the
galaxy" and /SuvwI''e'/ "warrior(s) (as topic)."  Their semantic roles are
unambiguous.  They meet all the described requirements of header nouns.

It's important to remember that /-'e'/ indicates the noun it's attached to
is the topic of the sentence, not the topic of something in the sentence.
/SuvwI''e' maja'chuq/ means "We talk about warriors," not because I'm saying
that the topic of our conversation is warriors, but because if the topic of
my sentence is warriors, then saying /maja'chuq/ "We confer" in relation to
that can only mean that our conference was about warriors.

Okrand recently gave us a new way to talk about . . . "about."  /Soj/ "food"
now has an idiomatic meaning of "matter, concern, affair."  We can say,
/maja'chuq; SuvwI' 'oH Soj'e'/, literally, "We confer; warrior(s) is the
matter (we talk about)."

And finally, as ghunchu'wI' pointed out, in the first example there's no
need to get so fancy.  /tlhIngan Hol SoQ vImuch/ "I present a Klingon
language speech" works (though there is a little ambiguity: is it a speech
in Klingon, or a speech about Klingon?).

SuStel
Stardate 4253.5

Back to archive top level