tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 11 20:22:26 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: moHaq nap, moHaq Qatlh ghap

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

From: <[email protected]>

> In a message dated 2004-07-11 2:02:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
> > chojangbe'pu'mo'
> > jIghelqa':  chay' moHaqmey Daqelbogh nap law' latlh nap puS?  chay'
<ma->
> > nap law' <Da-> nap puS?  HIchuH.
> >
> I used 'simple' for the prefixes without an object because to me those
> prefixes are semantically simpler, having only one semantic role (subject)
to play,
> while prefixes with objects play two semantic roles (subject and object),
so
> they are 'complex'.
>
> > yIqIm! yIbuS! "Pay attention and concentrate" is not ambiguous.  DaH
yIDIl!
> > "Pay now" is not ambiguous.  There is no object in the sentence.
> >
> When you translate them that way there is no object, but the glosses for
> {buS} and {DIl}
> are "concentrate on, focus on, think only about" and "pay for".  So
equally
> accurate translations might be "Pay attention and concentrate on it" and
"Pay
> for it now".  In both cases the prefix {yI-} is ambiguous.

But they WERE translated that way, which means that {yIqIm} doesn't HAVE to
mean "pay attention *to it*."  And since the context in which these words
were uttered did not give any reason to expect them to have objects, the
only reasonable interpretation is that they do not have elided objects.

Verbs in Klingon are NEVER required to have an object, no matter what the
gloss given for the verb.  If you're really pedantic about it (which you
are), verbs with no-object prefixes but with prepositions added to the
English gloss can be interpreted as having unknown or vague objects, as per
TKD pp. 33-34.

If you cannot apply context and reason to your understanding of Klingon,
you'll never get anywhere.

> I suppose I should have said "exclusively no-object prefix" or given the
list
> of those prefixes which I was considering, but I didn't realize that I
wasn't
> being clear.  And no, I'm not going to use {yI-}.

For WHAT?!?

> > If you gave some clue about *why* you're asking, maybe someone could
give
> > you an answer more to your liking.
> >
> Apparently so.  I thought it was a fairly simple question at the time,
though.

'ej Dajangbe'taHqu'.  chIch bInuQba'taH jay'!

SuStel
Stardate 4528.7

Back to archive top level