tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 15 06:52:14 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Suffixes (Was: <<tlhIngan 'o' Humghach>>vetlh)
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 09:51:32 -0500
- In-Reply-To: "trI'Qal"'s message of Sat, 13 Nov 1993 11:36:18 -0400 (EDT) <[email protected]>
>From: "trI'Qal" <DOBELBOWER%[email protected]>
>Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 11:36:18 -0400 (EDT)
>Well, I have a few more weird questions/comments.
>First, in response to ~mark:
>>Basically, you did a good job trying to translate the jokesd, you were just
>>too hard on yourself, picking jokes that simply *cannot* be translated.
>>Don't be such a taskmistress next time! :-)
>He Qatlh law' Hoch puS 'e' quvmoH law' Hoch quvmoH puS!
>(Ew, that is a horrid construction! Hope my meaning was clear... if not, I
>will send it in English)
yajchu'. There may be a better way to say it, but I can't think of it
either.
>1: Is it possible to use the same rover *twice* in two different places on
>the same verb? My instincts (again) say that this is incorrect, and it should
>hardly ever be needed, but I have encountered a few times where this was
>exactly what I was trying to do. I got around it by re-wording the sentence
>entirely.
DujlIj Qoch DujwIj'e'. It's in my mind that this kind of double-usage is
definitely part of rover-ness, just like being able to modify a verb in
more than one way depending on position. I would certainly say
{jIQuchbe'laHbe'} for "I cannot agree", since "-be'" is permitted in any
position and is needed in both. We haven't forbidden the use of two rovers
on the same verb (anyone have a canonical example of a verb with two
rovers? I can't think of any at the moment); why should it matter if the
two rovers happen to be the same one?
>How proper/improper is "QochHa'?" If you say that verbs in the dictionary
>which have suffixes attached to them are not "rigid" (ie, the attached
>suffixes can and SHOULD be seperated from the verb when suffixes of a previos
>type are added, such as with my "jIquv'eghmoHpu'"), then why can I replace -
>be' with -Ha', and still keep the original meaning?
Proper? It's probably correct and means something. One thing you have to
watch out for in replacing "-be'" with "-Ha'" is that "-Ha'", despite being
a rover, always comes immediately after the verb, while "-be'" is a true
rover.
>Sorry if this is really confusing, but to me, there is a VERY distinct
>difference between "Qochbe'" and "QochHa'". To me, "QochHa'" means "to
>agree," while "Qochbe'" means "to not disagree," ie, neither agreeing nor
>disagreeing.
This is an excellent question. I also wonder why it's {Qochbe'} and not
{QochHa'} for "agree". By the analysis I posted a while ago on "-Ha'",
this would be a perfect use of the "opposite" meaning of "-Ha'" (cf.
Esperanto konsenti/malkonsenti). Perhaps {Qochbe'} has a connotation we're
not aware of, and we might want to use {QochHa'} sometimes. (I could make
annoying cultural comments like "Maybe in Klingon society, the closest you
get to agreement is failure to disagree..." [Kind of like the net]). Maybe
it's just one of those things, an irregularity. Anyone have any comments
on that "-Ha'" stuff? I expected to hear from Nick on it by now, at least.
~mark