tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 01 11:40:02 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: neH (verb)
Voragh:
> > qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH
> > I wanted to capture prisoners.
> > In this final example, the first part is {qama'pu' vIjonta'}
> > "I captured prisoners". Note once again that the aspect marker
> > (in this case, {-ta'} "accomplished") goes with the first verb
> > only; the second verb {vIneH} "I want it", is neutral as to time.
> > The past tense of the translation ("I wanted...") comes from the
> > aspect marker on the first verb.
>
> > Used in canon:
> >
> > vIneHpu'
> > I wanted them. TKD
Paul:
>Interesting question here. /vIneHpu'/ is the ONLY example where /neH/
>takes an aspect marker.
Correct. But notice that this is a single, one-word sentence.
>The note above that indicates that the aspect of
>/neH/ comes from the aspect marker on the first verb.
This refers to complex Sentence as Object (SAO) constructions.
>The question is, does this negate the possibility of using an aspect
>marker on /neH/? For example, is the following still valid?
>
> * 'op leS Duj vIra' vIneHpu'
> "I had wanted to command a ship someday."
Sorry. It's not.
>I think it works; the aspect of the verb "want" in the English is clearly
>past, while the concept expressed as the object of desire is clearly in
>the future... Does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, it's just not allowed. Here's
Okrand on SAOs (TKD 65f., emphasis added):
In complex sentences of this type, the SECOND VERB NEVER TAKES AN
ASPECT SUFFIX. (section 4.2.7) When the verb of the second sentence
has a third-person subject (that is, the pronominal prefix is 0)
but the intended meaning is "one" or "someone", rather than "he, she,
it," or "they", {net} is used instead of {'e'}. <...> When the verb
of the second sentence is {neH} "want", neither {'e'} nor {net} is
used, but the construction is otherwise identical to that just
described.
IOW if you want to vary the aspect in a SAO, you can only do it to the
first verb. E.g.:
qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH
I wanted to capture prisoners. TKD
yaS qIppu' 'e' vIlegh
I saw him hit the officers. TKD
Hem tlhIngan Segh 'ej maHemtaH 'e' wIHech
Klingons are a proud race, and we intend to go on being proud. TKW
yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'
Survival must be earned. TKW
Now that being said, Okrand has violated this rule twice:
DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS
be'nI'pu' lurSa' be'etor je.
The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor, are constantly
seeking a higher standing for the House of Duras within the Klingon
High Council. S26
DaH che' ghawran. yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho'
'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD.
Gowron currently presides, named leader of the High Council by
Captain Jean-Luc Picard, who was acting as Arbiter of Succession. S25
These have been interpreted as either mistakes on Okrand's part (i.e. he
forgot his own rule while translating a fairly long sentence), or they're
examples of {mu'mey ru'} - bending the rules for rhetorical effect. See
KGT (p.176):
Sometimes words or phrases are coined for a specific occasion,
intentionally violating grammatical rules in order to have an impact.
Usually these are never heard again, though some gain currency and
might as well be classified as slang. Klingon grammarians call such
forms {mu'mey ru'} ("temporary words"). Sometimes, {mu'mey ru'} fill
a void--that is, give voice to an idea for which there is no standard
(or even slang) expression; sometimes, like slang, they are just more
emphatic ways of expressing an idea. A common way to create these
constructions is to bend the grammatical rules somewhat, violating
the norm in a way that is so obvious that there is no question that
it is being done intentionally. To do this is expressed in Klingon
as {pabHa'} ("misfollow [the rules], follow [the rules] wrongly").
Of course, a third explanation is that the rule isn't quite as rigid as
"Federation linguists" originally thought. <g>
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons