tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 05 05:01:46 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: rain and snow
Two weeks after the fact, I know, but as I crawl my way up out of the pit of
old emailings, this one caught my eye.
marqem posted:
> Most of the time when you're talking about rain, you mean the
> fact that it's raining.
>
> I got wet from the rain
> SISmo' jIQaDHa'pu'
>
> But if you're really talking about the stuff that's falling as
> it falls, I suggest SISwI'. Similarly, falling snow would be
> peDwI'... but after it's fallen, peDpu'wI'.
If I'm understanding the intent correctly, the use of SISwI' for "rain" is
SIS for the verb "rain" and the type nine suffix -wI' for "thing which does
that" so that SISwI' is "thing that rains" or "thing that's raining" or some
such.
If I'm reading this right, I can understand where marqem is coming from with
this, but I don't agree. It's not the "rain" doing the "raining," it's the
clouds.
Okay, I know this may seem a trivial point, but I don't think it is. Events
like weather in languages like English or German strike me as ripe for the
use of the -lu' suffix (which of course still doesn't help us in our quest
for a word for the noun "rain"). What I mean though is, that this usage
doesn't seem to work. Extend the logic to other situations, e.g., the use of
the verb baH, "fire (torpedo)." In this instance we happen to have a word
for torpedo, peng (or cha if you want more than one torpedo). Note that the
word baHwI' refers to the agent of the verb, the one who is doing the firing,
not the object of that verb, the thing(s) being fired.
Similarly, SISwI' to my way of thinking has to be referring to the agent of
the verb, the thing *doing* the raining, not the object being acted upon,
which in that case would be the rain.
Just some musings as I try to catch up.
Lawrence
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::