tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 01 08:56:28 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Conjunctions
>From: [email protected]
>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 12:45:11 -0400 (EDT)
>A while back I posted a question on this list asking which of the
>following two sentences were correct?:
>{yaS HoD joq wIlegh} or {yaS HoD joq DIlegh}
>{Duleghqang 'oSwI' gharwI' joq}/{nIleghqang 'oSwI' gharwI' joq}
>How do pronominal prefixes work for {joq} phrases. For that matter, how
>can we be certain that {Duj tIj yaS HoD ghap} and {Duj lutIj yaS HoD je}
>are correct? We can't. Okrand never gave any reference for how N-N-Conj.
>phrases were to be used with pronominal prefixes.
Well, for *me*, I'd argue that this is a sufficiently borderline case that
probably either would be correct, though likely one or the other is
cosidered most proper by pedantic Klingon grammarians. But my opinion
isn't really needed here, since we *do* have a cannonical sentence that
gives us a clue as to the answer. In Conversational Klingon (That's right,
the earlier tape), in the bar scene, we have "They serve Black Ale or
Regulan Bloodwine" as {HIq qIj reghuluS 'Iw HIq ghap jab}. Note that it's
{jab} and not {lujab}, thus implying that a {ghap} conjoined noun-phrase is
considered *plural*. If you're willing to apply logic to a language (a
dangerous proposition, I'll grant), you could say that if a ghap phrase is
plural, where the "real" referent must be singular, then a fortiori you
have that a joq or je phrase would be plural too. That's what we have for
from the canon, make of it what you will.
>Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
~mark, ~ of all marks. Or maybe mark of all ~s.