tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 13 15:57:30 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "ser" and "estar" (to be)

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

From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>

> Voragh:
> > > There is, however, a slight wrinkle when using pronouns to refer to
> > > location:  you have to say PRONOUN + {-taH} "continuous".  E.g.:
>
> SuStel:
> >My guess is this isn't so much a linguistic requirement as a practical
one.
>
> I'm not so sure.  Just to play Fek'lhr's advocate for a moment, Okrand
used
> {PRO+taH} even for temporary locations.

It's not a question of whether it's temporary or not.  It's whether your
presence in the location is "continuous" or not.

>    pa'Daq jIHtaH
>    I'm in the room. TKD
>
>    pa'wIjDaq jIHtaH
>    I am in my quarters. TKD
>
>    pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'
>    The commander is in his quarters. TKD
>
>    jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
>    I'm lost. TKD
>
>    naDev bIHtaH
>    Here they are. PK

In all of these cases, the people or objects in question are in their
locations in an ongoing basis, whether or not it's a permanent one.  When
it's just a simple matter of being in or at a location, the situation calls
for /-taH/.  When the location is not that simple, other suffixes might
apply.

> >Given the right circumstances, I could see other suffixes being used this
way.
> >
> >   wa' rep ret jImej; DaH naDev jIHqa'.
> >   I left an hour ago; now I'm here again.
>
> I would expect to hear {DaH naDev jIHtaHqa'}.

That would put a type 3 suffix after a type 7 suffix.  At best it'd have to
be /DaH naDev jIHqa'taH/.

/-qa'/ refers to a resumption of a previously discontinued state.  If I say
/jIQuchqa'/, it means I resume being happy.  Continuity after the
discontinuity is implied.  (/-qa'/ can also be used to refer to
non-continuous actions.)  Likewise, in my previous example of coming back
after leaving an hour ago, the continuity of my presence after returning is
implied with /-qa'/.

> There are no examples of {-qa'} being used on a pronoun.

Mind you, I'm not saying these MUST be acceptable in Klingon.  However, they
seem a reasonable use to me, given what we know of canon, and my feel for
the language.  Lack of canon is not proof of invalidity.

>  Okrand writes
> (TKD 37) about {-qa'}:  "Using this suffix implies that an action had been
> taking place, then it stopped, and then it began again".  Is {jIH} "I am"
> really an *action*?

/jIH/ isn't a verb, but you can use verb suffixes on it.

And how about /'IHqa'/ "be beautiful again."  Suppose someone were in an
accident, and became horribly scarred.  They have some plastic surgery, and
become beautiful again.  That would be /'IHqa'/.  Is /'IH/ "be beautiful" an
*action*?

And what about /-taH/?  It's explained in TKD as, "This suffix indicates
that an action is ongoing."  If you can use /-taH/, which describes an
ongoing *action*, on a pronoun, why not /-qa'/, which describes a resumed
action?

I don't think the word "action" should be taken quite that literally.

I don't see any good reason why /-qa'/ can't be used on a pronoun.  There's
no proof that it's allowed, but there's no proof that it's NOT allowed
either, and it performs a productive and easy to understand function.

> >   pa'lIjDaq jIHlI'.
> >   I'm in your room (and will be until I don't have to be anymore).
>
> There are no examples of any other Type 7 suffix being used on a pronoun
> other than {-taH}, and all the examples of the latter are those I provided
> in my last post showing location.
>
> Okrand writes (TKD 42f.) that "{-lI'} implies that the activity has a
known
> goal or a definite stopping point. In other words, it suggests that
> progress is being made toward that goal."   Again, I'm not sure that
> "being" is an activity.  Linguistically at least, pronouns-as-verbs behave
> as stative verbs, not action verbs.
>
> >   pa' 'oH!  DaH pa' 'oH!  DaH pa' 'oH!
> >   There it is!  Now it's over there!  Now it's over there!
> >   (said pointing at an erratically-moving object)
>
> This one without any suffix, however, I think is quite possible.  I can
> easily imagine hearing this from a frustrated {nuHpIn} trying to get a
lock
> on an enemy ship continuously cloaking and decloaking in the midst of
battle.

It's probably not possible at this stage to declare for certain that /-taH/
MUST be used on pronouns in "to be" constructions.

David
Stardate 4035.3

Back to archive top level