tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 22 07:12:04 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
nujDaq qam lanpu' vay'
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: nujDaq qam lanpu' vay'
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 10:11:58 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Peter Garza's message of Sat, 20 Nov 1993 19:17:00 -0600 (CST) <[email protected]>
>From: Peter Garza <[email protected]>
>Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 19:17:00 -0600 (CST)
>> >From: Peter Garza <[email protected]>
>> >Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 22:53:57 -0600 (CST)
>>
>> > tlhIngan Hol jatlhbogh loDvaD bIja'taH vIja'ta'. 'IjtaH Holvam
>> >vIjatlh 'e' Sovbogh juppu'wIj wa' je 'ej Haghqu'choH ghaH.
>>
>> "juppu'wI'"; they're sentient (I hope!). Do you mean "one of my friends
>> who know I speak Klingon"? Then the "wa'" comes *first*. When numbers
>> come afterwards they mean something like "number one" (you used this
>> construction when referring to your music teacher in a previous post--it
>> was you, right?--and I figured it sort of worked for "first", though
>> wa'DIch would have been better).
>yup, my friends can speak (just not Klingon ;). jIghItlhHa'pu'.
>In TKD 5.2, Okrand writes, "Numbers are used as nouns." I tried to use the
>N-N rule. Maybe something like juppu'wI'vo' wa' (one from my friends).
Oh, I see. I didn't consider the noun-usage of numerals. It might still
be iffy, what with the noun-number construction and all, but there's always
pragmatics to fall back on. I'm not sure I trust that use of "-vo'",
though. Partitive use ("some from many") often isn't the same as ablative
(motion away from). It's possible there's no good way to say this without
recasting with a verb and all, but I wouldn't sweat it. There's always
just {jupwI'}.
>[...]
>> >(1) I wanted to say "because of <the whole sentence>". Since "'e'" is
>> >a pronoun, I guessed it could take verb suffixes like the other
>> >pronouns.
>>
>> This has been brought up already, but so far as I know is still on shaky
>> ground. You could recast as Krankor suggests, or maybe use "Dochvetlhmo'"
>> (or Dochvammo'); those should work well.
>>
>Could you (or anyone) post the general gist of the arguement against it. I
>still think that "'e'", being a pronoun, should be able to take suffixes,
>but I'm no linguist nor do I subscribe to HolQeD (maybe Christmas ;).
>Maybe it's a weird word lumped into the pronoun category by the Klingon
>grammarians (kinda like putting "-Ha'" in with the rovers even though it
>doesn't rove, so to speak).
Well, as has been pointed out, just because Okrand calls them "pronouns"
doesn't mean they behave like all other pronouns. For that matter, what
are pronouns? They're all chuvmey, and as such could have grammar that's
peculiar almost to each individual member. Okrand also says that "'e'" is
always the object of a sentence. It'd be nice if "'e'mo'" existed, but
I think it's still iffy.
However, think about what "'e'" sentences recast to in stilted
translations. "yaS qIp puq 'e' vIlegh": "the child hits the officer; that
I see." What would be wrong with using "wanI'vam"? (not "Dochvam"; I think
that's not as good a suggestion) Mostly just the fact that we know that
"'e'" is the right thing to use here, for possibly obscure reasons. But
that doesn't mean that we can't use "wanI'vammo'" where you'd want
"*'e'mo'".
>> ~mark
>Peter Garza
>[email protected]
~mark