tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 19 19:04:05 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Doch Sar



Hu'tegh! nuq ja' [email protected] jay'?

=1. DochwI' Da [Okrand]. I agree with Nick, on the establishment of a Klingon
=Academy, if Okrand doesn't step out at least every three months and give us
=some new words and clarification on grammatical controversies.

and the crowd goes wild! ;)

=2. I don't think any one of us has a real grasp on the nature of Klingon's
=backward syntax.

Oh. I dunno. I do know that I was trying to teach myself Farsi the other
day (I've got an Iranian roommate in my office), and I had to stop myself
from putting my indirect objects first in the sentence!

=The fact that Klingons use OVS and tend to stick all other words in front of
=that structure does not mean that their brains are backwards. 

It doesn't. It does mean that... oh, how do I put it: feeling at home with
Klingon, being able to talk to yourself in it, without having to do things
like put the -meH clause at the end of the sentence, then realise it doesn't
belong there and correct yourself --- is difficult. But I also think it comes
with time.

Speaking of Farsi: it distinguishes between & (a as in man) and a (a as
in British father), and I just realised I've been using the wrong a in
Klingon all this time. My Klingon a is central (a as in Australian father;
it's American too, isn't it?), but Klingon a is back. At least, now I'll
have to relisten to those tapes...

=4. Nick's wish for understanding the nature of the Klingon Sprachegefuehl is
=rather unrealistic, considering a definite lack of native speakers.

All I can say is, after 170 K of Klingon, I do have *some* sort of feel
about Klingon. charghwI' is probably quite right in saying it's just
*my* feel, but I think there is a common denominator to all possible 
Sprachgefuehle that is more than our English substratum.

=A Sentence-As-Subject construction is a most reasonable wish. [...]
=In fact, a clause can do all the things that a nominal can do in Klingon, 
=EXCEPT be a subject.

Yes; but I don't see how a SAS construction could be fitted into the language
at this late stage. In any case, I've given up on it, using ghu'vam as
a clausal anaphor almost exclusively these days; thus:

=An English phrase that Lloyd used in ST3 keeps coming to mind: "Who I am is
=not important; [the fact] that I have them is [important]." How to render
=this in Klingon?? There must be a way.

'Iv jIH [net yu'laH]. ram ghu'vetlh. potlh ghu'vam: chaH vIghaj.

=7. More on how badly Klingon needs an irrealis:
=In the phrase, {jIjaH vIneH}, what is really being said is "I go. That's what
=I want." If you don't want to mean that the action of going is really
=happening, you would have to use an irrealis. "I would go. That's what I
=want."

=That would severely change a lot of Klingon grammar. Oh well. So much for
=that wish.

Like I said, all you need is an adverb corresponding to chaq.

-- 
Nick.



Back to archive top level