tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 02 04:35:36 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -nIS : whose volition?
- From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -nIS : whose volition?
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:35:20 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=o0BDvT4X7cHvwvZ2AXZICdYNLJeHJjHPG2DV57pcaHM=; b=oRaRUD7szG5UX8OdBNXhBgJi75xSwugoySI3v9tg6laAS+OKno/SB8Zc4DClA5fvOS GqzlxVoX0ps51Z+fTwwg9+RfNqoVbR3JskSmPIMokbQvUg7kqsR4m+NUR6n5+zsHH8jw g8REDZGK/bF28Si43ZXbCqQP9zc2dvOUhnhin88DJz+CrGAinPqpMdgbZuiEaARUx+AK v11o6rcE1ySi/FNEoq086P4mY+WSP/o+FV1YWYhu6t2alDAP96Eg5FIApNggUOAnKGNo JGgXxbSfjyhDm5YOZR+4xUN9WE8PkA0l6Wp2LnpPOh6JvcVbwDX1QRsPf5hg8wqoZjyT vjrQ==
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- List-archive: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/>
- List-id: <tlhingan-hol.kli.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
- References: <[email protected]>
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Robyn Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
> Once again I am seeking to satisfy the widest possible range of competent
> Klingon speakers with my interpretation of TKD and canon for the beginners’
> course.
>
> We know from TKD that type 2 verb suffixes represent the volition of the
> subject to perform the action of the verb. We also have the sentence from
> Star Trek V: DungDaq legh 'ej QotnIStaH romuluSngan be'pu' = Romulan women
> belong on their backs.
This line was filmed, but not part of the final cut of the movie,
IIRC. It is in the deleted scenes on the DVD, though. I'll accept it
as close-to-canon, but it's always seemed a little off to me... the
{DungDaq legh} part doesn't make much sense, since one can obviously
lie on one's side and still be looking up, unless {DungDaq legh 'ej
Qot} is some sort of set expression to mean "lie on one's back". But I
digress...
> Clearly in this sentence Korrd is not describing the
> actual volition of Romulan women, nor what he believes about what they
> personally need, but his own opinion, what they would need to do to satisfy
> him, similar to us saying, “That food needs to be in my belly.”
Type 2 indicates volition or predisposition, and I think Koord is
indicating the lack of volition by the Romulan women, or perhaps (what
he claims is) the predisposition on their part to lie on their backs.
> I think I say and hear things like this in Klingon all the time. Are we
> correct? Is Korrd’s line an aberration or regionalism? Would you feel it
> correct or incorrect to advise beginners to avoid this usage?
>
> Would you accept the sentence:
>
> jagh mernIS bachlIj.
>
> Clearly the shot itself has no volition, it is the speaker (addressing the
> gunner) who has the need.
Yes, I'd accept it.
btw, {-nIS} has been used with both {vay'} and {-lu'} in canon.
batlh Heghlu'chugh noDnISbe' vay' - An honourable death requires no vengeance.
yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu' - Victory must be earned.
It's interesting that in the English translations, the subjects ("an
honourable death" and "victory") are things which have no volition,
although the Klingon are phrased to have an unspecified or indefinite
subject on the verb with {-nIS}.
There's also {ghob tIvnISbe'lu'} "one need not enjoy virtue" - which
might perhaps also be translated as "virtue need not be enjoyed".
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol