tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 18 15:50:33 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD miscellanea
- From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
- Subject: Re: HolQeD miscellanea
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 17:47:58 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "trI'Qal" at Apr 18, 94 4:43 pm
Hu'tegh! nuq ja' trI'Qal jay'?
=>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.
=[text deleted]
=No, naDev is *NOT* a locative adverb.
=naDev is quite clearly marked in the KD as being a NOUN. It has the one
=exception of being a noun which cannot take -Daq... but it is *still* a
=*noun*.
Yeah, I'm aware of that, which is why I mentioned the "house of the here"
translation. I was going to retort "but the absent -Daq means it's behaving
like an adverb", but now I think about it, you can just as well say it's
a noun in locative case (i.e. the -Daq is still there in spirit, it just
doesn't get pronounced). But there's no similar suffix to be omitted for
DaHjaj, which behaves the same way. In essence, these words behave just
like they do in English, and not a word of justification is given in TKD
(though we know nouns aren't *supposed* to occur in that position), so
I'm hesitant to consider naDev the grammatical equivalent of juHlIjDaq;
I'd want less ambiguous evidence for apposition than this. naDev and
juHlIjDaq don't just have to be both nouns; they also have to be prepositional
phrases for this to be an apposition...
=>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.")
=Um, I translated very loosely. This is a sentence-as-object construction.
=Look at it again. If you are referring to the word <jup> at the front, I
=suggest you re-read the section on Names and Addresses. If you are referring
=to something else entirely, then you better state what exactly is confusing
=you. :)
OK, what you claimed you were saying is not what you're actually saying.
The reason I made that comment is that what you ended up saying still makes
sense --- and is a somewhat novel use of "'e'" at that. What you're actually
saying is, "Friend: the place is transmitting. The king approaches this
event." Your translation corresponds to: "jup, lI'bogh Daq ghoS ta'" (lI'
isn't stative, so can't be an adjective, and isn't in the right place for
it anyway.)
--
Nick.