tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 18 10:56:05 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Finally got some time... KLBC

Shane MiQogh ([email protected]) 

so theoretically... if i want to say "I am afraid" as a general satement of it's own without even implying that you are afraid of an object, you could say jIHvIp. If that were the case, then also theoretically, one would say that pronouns are verbs that cannot take prefix but have an implied prefix already.
Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]> wrote:  --- Shane MiQogh wrote:

> How would one go about saying "I am afraid of him"
> as a general statement? I know you have afraid as a
> verb suffix, but not as a verb. So how would one say
> they're afraid of some one? 
>

There isn't a simple verb for "be afraid" as far 
as we know. As you say, {-vIp} is a verb suffix.
One thing you can do is use it with a verb that
says why you are afraid, eg. {vISuvvIp} 'I am
afraid to fight him'. Or you can turn the
idea around and use {ghIj} 'to scare': {mughIj}
'He scares me.'

> And let's say some one calls you an idiot, how
> would you go about saying "I'm not an idiot" when
> there is no form of "be"?
>

The pronouns stand in as copulas for the idea of
"to be". I don't remember if there is an example
in the book, but you can use verbal
suffixes on the pronouns when they act as copulas.
So, if someone says {qoH SoH} 'you are a fool',
you can reply {qoH jIHbe'bej} 'I am definitely not
a fool'.

> Oh yea, and similar to the one above... How does
> one say "i am alseep"? Would it be "jIQong" which
> means "i sleep" literally or would it "vul jIH" or
> "jIvul"? (Note the usage of the pronoun form, since
> i want to say "I am asleep", wouldn't i use a
> pronoune and no prefix so a "be" would be imagined
> between jIH and "vul"? or since "to be" is infront
> of the verb inthe dictionary i can have jI- infront
> of it, or even if it dosn't have "to be" infront in
> the dictionary can i do it that way and say "jIQong"
> even though Qong is just "sleep" not "to be asleep"?
> 

As far as we know {Qong} means 'to sleep',
and can be used to mean 'to be asleep' (for falling
asleep, I'd use {jIQongchoH} 'I begin to sleep').
{jIvul} means "I am unconscious", which
is a completely different idea. The basic point is
that English makes a distinction between general
activities (such as "I sleep every night") and
on-going states (such as "I am asleep"), but that
Klingon does not, so {jIQong} means both 'I sleep'
and 'I am asleep'. If you really have to emphasize
the on-going nature of the act, you can say
{jIQongtaH} which means "I am still sleeping/asleep."

Your question about {vul jIH}: this is ungrammatical
as written. You at least need to add a verbal
prefix to the verb: {jIvul} "I am unconscious."
You could add the pronoun for emphasis, {jIvul jIH}
"_I_ am (the one who's) unconscious", but you
definitely need the verb prefix. (Ah, I see now
what you're getting at with the stand-alone pronoun.
But you can only use that construction with a
noun and pronoun-as-copula. {vul} is a verb.
You could say {vulwI' jIH} "I am an unconscious-type
of person", but that would be a very wordy way to
say it, and would further imply that you are by
nature always a {vulwI'}.)

Your problem is trying to account for the verb
"be" required by the English. You can't go by
English usage to decide Klingon grammar. English
adjectives are all of the form "to be X". This
describes a state. Most English adjectives have
action verb equivalents that mean "to X", formed
in various ways (eg. "to be asleep/to sleep", "to be
red/to redden", "to be happy/to rejoice", etc.)
Klingon verbs already cover both the "to be X" and "to
X" ideas, so the presence or absence of "be" in the
English is not relevant. You just need to handle the
Klingon verb on its own terms and add the
appropriate verb prefix to it.

-- ter'eS BG 




		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

Back to archive top level