tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 02 01:46:01 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Klingon math, et al



According to Mark E. Shoulson:
> 
> >charghwI'vo'
> 
> I'm not going to comment on the math stuff yet; too much there to digest
> for now.

I will await your thoughts.

[stuff about {-lu'} requiring an object]
 
> Not quite true.  "-lu'" need not imply an object.  It only implies that the
> *subject* is indefinite.  You can have an indefinite subject and no object.
> It's basically like replacing the subject with "vay'".  Indeed, we have
> canonical evidence: in TKD, in the phraselist, we have "quSDa[q]
> ba'lu''a'?" (typo: there's a Q instead of a q).  This is given as "Is this
> seat taken?"  Literally, it's "Is someone/something sitting in the seat" or
> even "Is it being sat in the chair?"  Sanskrit, which has a real passive,
> has no problem saying things like "In the forest it is happily lived by the
> hermits".  Don't mistake indefinite subject for a required object.

There is nothing in 4.2.5 of TKD that suggests that there are
any options for {-lu'} besides vI-, Da-, wI-, bo-, lu- or the
null prefix, by example indicating third person singular
subject and object. All of these prefixes grammatically
indicate third person singular object, and by the grammatical
requirements of Klingon, all of them indicate a subject. The
function of {-lu'} reverses the roles of subject and object and
turn the third person singular object into the indefinite
subject.

To leap from this to talk about the use of the null prefix with
the {-lu'} suffix to indicate an indefinite subject and no
object is quite a leap. What it means is that before the magic
of {-lu'}, that verb has no subject. I would think that this
would be a stark enough exception to the general grammar that
Okrand would have mentioned it SOMEWHERE.

As for the example in the phrase list, there were TWO typos --
both the wrong case on the Q that you pointed out and also a
space thrown into the middle of the word {ba'lu'}. My own
conclusion is that either Okrand came up with it when he was
pulling an all-nighter rushing to make a publishing deadline,
or Maltz had been hitting the Romulan Ale a little hard when he
said something that Okrand didn't understand. Putting a lot of
weight on an example of something that no Klingon in his right
mind would ever say in the FIRST place, which has TWO typos in
it and marks a radical departure from the grammar given in the
book, ... gee. I don't know. That seems to be a far enough
reach that I don't feel uncomfortable questioning the validity
here. I respect your opinion a lot, and that of Krankor, who
also has pointed to this example as evidence of the same
grammatical trait.

It still seems like very poor form to me. This is the kind of
thing that I REALLY wish Okrand would come clean on. I really
wish he would make a statement clarifying this once and for
all. As it is, it is just sloppy and vague.

"Is this seat taken?" indeed! Next, we'll be translating,
"Would you be so kind as to hold my place in line while I go to
the powder room and freshen up?" or "Have a nice day."

> >charghwI'
> 
> ~mark
> 
> yInlIj DayInlaHchu''a'?  pe'vIl DayInlaH'a'?  bIqu'Ha'taHvIS DayInlaH'a'?
> nIQ DaSopmeH chab DaSop 'e' DanajlaH'a'?  jIHvaD neH cha'nay' tIn tu'lu'.
> 
I'm sure this is a quote from something. I follow it up to the
last sentence, and then you lose me. "There are two big dishes
(courses of a meal) only for me." Is the idea that the listener
is supposed to whip out his betleH and challenge you for the
food?

charghwI'



Back to archive top level