tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 12 16:55:38 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

HolQeD miscellanea

Comments on HolQeD 3:1.

1. naDev juHlIjDaq, contrary to Krankor's claim, is not an apposition. He
quotes the definition of 'apposition' as "the second [term...] has the
same grammatical construction as the first". naDev is a locative adverb.
juHlIjDaq is a prepositional phrase. They are both the same *semantically*
(locatives), but not *syntactically* --- certainly nothing to do with
the noun-noun couplings discussed. My intuition, incidentally, is that
appositions are *not* Klingon.

naDev juHlIj, furthermore, makes perfect sense as an N-N construction, if
we interpret the N-N relation in a sensibly loose fashion. If bIng juH
means "the house below", then naDev juH means "the house in *this* area".
Remember, naDev is a noun as well as an adverb; "here" in English is
not a noun --- but "this area" is (a noun phrase).

2. Krankor's position on -ghach is at odds with his usual procedure of
taking the most *conservative* solution in such cases (which here would
be -taHghach, since it would not be invalidated if Krankor's thesis is
shown valid.) The article on p. 8 certainly doesn't "clear up" the issue,
and the persisting uncertainty is intolerable. It is about time, I feel,
Okrand earn his keep. Either he resolves this by next issue (this has been
kicking around for *months*), or we give up waiting and set up a Klingon
Academy. (I don't think I'm overreacting. This situation really is 
intolerable.)

3. The author on p.11 is a superstar and should be given lots of money.

4. The author on p.12 is pretty cool too. ;)

5. p. 17. Ruth Marie Bieber, meet Will Martin. ;)

6. p. 17. Jonathan Van Hoose's suggestion seems to me pretty high priority
for discussion amongst the HoDpu' here it would affect...

7. p. 19. I'm not sure what to make of trI'Qal's translations of her
Holorimes. Either she's misinformed about Klingon grammar, or is in fact
quite ingenious in exploiting it. (I'm thinking in particular of
jup, lI' Daq 'e' ghoS ta' --- "Friend, the emperor goes away from the site
which is transmitting.")

8. p. 20. -pu'ghach is as valid as -taHghach, and would refer to the single
acts Anthony has in mind. (Remember, -pu' is aspectual, not tense).

-- 
Nick.

Back to archive top level