tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 16 06:38:46 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Multiple verb suffixes
The root of the problem, as he might begrudgingly confess, is that Okrand is, unfortunately, not the best Klingon speaker on the planet, yet his every utterance is canon. We are stuck with bad canon, and just as he has to live with movie scenes in which the process of movie making has butchered his honest efforts to create and maintain a consistent language, we have to live with canon examples that are obviously wrong, but by definition must be right, because they are canon.
Then again, natural languages are inconsistent, and there are many native speakers of pretty much every language who regularly butcher the grammar and/or vocabulary, yet somebody somewhere generally understands them, while someone else gets pissed off every time they don't talk "right".
So, we live in a flawed world. And when the dust settles, I'm going to speak Klingon my way, whether you like it or not, and you are going to speak Klingon your way, whether I like it or not, and most of the time, we'll understand each other, even though we will want to correct each other whenever the other person doesn't follow what WE think is proper grammar and proper use of the vocabulary.
For me, a verb with {-moH} on it has the subject being the one causing the action of the verb. Nobody has convinced me otherwise, and the canon examples that indicate otherwise seem to me to be really badly written Klingon, and I have no need to emulate those examples.
You can emulate them, if you feel so inspired, and by so doing inspire eye rolling, and snippy comments, and in the end, you will have proven very little to anyone and we'll all get along a little less well.
Welcome to the Klingon speaking community. This is our life.
It also explains as well as anything the joy and frustration I've felt in my time here. In particular, it explains my extended absences from time to time. We'd much rather fight over grammar than speak the language. That I get repeatedly sucked into it is my greatest frustration. It's a character flaw. A big flaw. When I grow to hate it too much, I leave. When I forget how unpleasant it is, I come back.
Because I really enjoy the language, when I can make the time to use it.
wejpuH.
On Apr 15, 2014, at 7:27 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> {DaH jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH.} is one good example. Two others come from a Newsgroup posting:
>
> =======================================
> Since -moH is a
> Type 4 suffix, if a suffix of Type 1, 2, or 3 is to be used (such as -chuq
> "each other" [Type 1] or
> -nIS "need" [Type 2]), it would precede the Type 4 -moH; for example,
> pujchuqmoH "they weaken each other" or pujnISmoH "he/she needs to weaken
> [somebody]."
>
> [...]
>
> Thus, finally and at long last, to answer your first
> specific question, say vIchennISmoH for "I need to create
> it."
> =======================================
>
> For a more full discussion:
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1998-02-23-news.txt&get=source
>
> It's worth noting that TKD 4.2.2. states
>
> "[Type 2 verb suffixes] express how much choice the subject has about the action described or how predisposed the subject is to doing it."
>
> A strict reading of this, assuming that we've got the right idea of what constitutes a "subject" in Klingon, would seem to indicate that a sentence such as {choHeghvIpmoH} could only ever mean "You're afraid to make me die.", and never "You make me fear death."
>
> However, there is an apparent contradiction of this later in TKD 4.2.10.:
> {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} <it made him/her willing to die>
>
> Then, in paq'batlh (paq'raD, Canto 7, Stanzas 6-7):
>
> =====================================
> 'ach luj molor
> vangmo' molor HoSghajchoHqu' qeylIS
> 'ej SuvqangmoHbej
>
> Suvchu'meH Suvchu'meH Suvchu'meH
> ghaH SuvqangmoHchu'
> molor
>
> Instead, by doing so,
> Kahless grew mighty and strong,
> And it fueled his will to fight.
>
> To the death, to the death, to the death,
> It fueled his will to fight
> To the death.
> =====================================
>
> However, paq'batlh also contains an example that complies with TKD 4.2.2:
>
> paq'yav, Canto 6, Stanza 2
> =====================================
> ‘ej loDnI’lI’ yIjon
> molor DaQapbe’nISmoH
> yIghoS yIghoS yIghoS
>
> And get your brother,
> Molor must be stopped
> Go, go, go!
> =====================================
>
> So, there do seem to be some contradictions in the canon. Errors? Exceptions? "Adaptive syntax"?
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol