tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 08 11:28:59 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Adverbs, gerunds, participles, et al.

charghwI'vo:

Okay, okay. I REALLY wanted to respond to the original post,
but I held back so Holtej, the Beginners' Grammarian, could get
to this first. I even wrote out a response and then deleted it.
But now that someone else has stepped in, this becomes a
discussion topic and not just a question directed to the
grammarians and answered by a non-grammarian.

Hey, I can make up rules like that, can't I?

According to Erich Schneider:
> 
> 
> ghItlh Thornton Rose <[email protected]>
> 
> >1. How does one form adverbs? For example:
> 
> >Maltz eats his to'baj legs greedily.
> 
> No "easy" way. One might use /DataHvIS/ "while behaving like" with the
> appropriate suffix, and an object modified by the appropriate
> adjective.
> 
> nuv qur DataHvIS, to'baj 'uSDu'Daj Sop matlh.
> While acting like a greedy person, Maltz ate his to'baj legs.

I don't know about that. It kind of works, but it sounds very
indirect. Maltz doesn't just act like a greedy person. He IS a
greedy person, when he eats his to'baj legs. (But then, aren't
we all?)

> Or one could use /Da'bogh/.
> 
> to'baj 'uSDu'Daj Sop nuv qur Da'bogh matlh.
> Maltz, who acts like a greedy person, eats his to'baj legs.

Why not put {-taHvIS} on the OTHER verb? To me, it makes the
whole thing simpler and more to the point. 

to'baj 'uSDu'Daj SoptaHvIS matlh qur ghaH.

"While Maltz eats his to'baj legs, he is greedy." You can
further express that this is unlike his usual behavior by
saying:

to'baj 'uSDu'Daj SopDI' matlh qurchoH ghaH.

"As soon as Maltz eats his to'baj legs, he becomes greedy."

> >2. How is "with" expressed in Klingon. (I thought there was an affix
> >for it, but I can't find one.) For example:
> 
> >Maltz hit me with a rock.
> 
> This is one of my favorites. "With" has well over a dozen meanings in
> English, according to the last dictionary I checked. Two common ones
> are "accomapnies" and "using". For the former, there is /tlhej/, for
> the latter, /lo'/. My favorite way to express your sentence would be
> 
> muqIpta' nagh lo'bogh matlh. 
> Maltz, who uses a rock, hit me (deliberately).
> 
> Two other ways are:
> nagh lo'taHvIS, muqIpta' matlh.
> While using a rock, Maltz hit me (delib.).
> muqIpmeH, nagh matlh lo'ta'.
> In order to hit me, Maltz used a rock (delib.).

I strongly prefer this last version. Why? Well, I can add to
either of the other two versions to defeat the intended
meaning, thusly:

"Maltz, who uses a rock to make interesting sounds on his
forehead, hit me (deliberately) with his hand." That is a
perfectly sensible sentence.

"While using a rock to make interesting sounds on his forehead,
Maltz hit me (deliberately) with his hand." That is also a
perfectly sensible sentence.

See my point? "In order to hit me with his hand, Maltz used a
rock to make interesting sounds on his forehead." That is total
gibberish. Why?

There is a purpose link between the {-meH} verb and the main
verb, while there is merely a temporal link between the
{-taHvIS} verb and the main verb, and there is a link between
the {-bogh} verb and its associated NOUN, but not necessarily
with the main verb. You want to link hitting with using such
that one is the purpose of the other. The purpose of using the
rock is to hit.

Is ~mark listening in? This is an old disagreement between us
and this is my new attempt to illustrate why I like my way
better. He often uses {-taHvIS}.

> >3. How does one express gerunds and participles (verbal forms used as
> >adjectives), in Klingon? 
> 
> Creatively.

Well said.

> >For example:
> >a) Screaming in fear, Maltz ran to his quarters.
> 
> -taHvIS works here:
> jachtaHvIS, pa'majDaq qetta' matlh yoHHa'.
> While screaming, fearful (lit. uncourageous) Maltz ran to his quarters.
> 
> and also -bogh, as in the "4000 throats" phrase:
> pa'majDaq qetta' jachbogh matlh yoHHa'.
> Fearful Matlz, who screams, ran to his quarters.

majQa'. Both of these solutions are indeed creative and well
done. The meaning behind this is that Maltz is simultaneously
screaming and running (hence, {-taHvIS}) and that it is the
same Maltz who both screams and runs (hence {-bogh}). They both
work fine, IMHO.

> >b) Eating chocolate is Maltz's job.
> 
> One might handle this case specifically with
> yuch Sop 'e' 'oH matlh Qu''e'.
> Maltz's duty is that he eats chocolate. 
> (I may be incorrect in my phrasing here.)

This one is a little slippery. Many would argue that this is
fine, and it may very well be. This calls for a grammarian's
ruling here, since if you look closer, you see that the
sentence may really say, "It is Maltz's job that he eats
chocolate." We now have the generic (English) "it" to deal
with. "It" and "that" are the same thing. We have now cloaked
the infamous Sentence As Subject construction, which doesn't
exist in Klingon.

Instead, I smell a purpose clause here. I'd go for something
like:

QaHmeH matlh yuch Sop ghaH.

"In order that Maltz helps, he eats chocolate." If this is a
job for which he is paid, replace {QaHmeH} with {Huch SuqmeH}.

> >But, I couldn't think of anything for gerunds that wasn't awkard. Consider:
> >SuvtaHghach - fighting (the act of).
> 
> What's so "awkward" about this? It's always been my opinion that
> -ghach is a general gerund marker. I happen to be, though, in the
> "liberal -ghach" camp here on the list, and so would just say
> "Suvghach". Some people on the list like to avoid -ghach whenever
> possible, and rephrase their sentences to use the verb as a verb.

Yep. That's me, alright. Still, Krankor himself (the original
and continuing grammarian for this list) uses {-ghach} in this
way, so I do not consider myself to be "right" in this opinion.
I just consider this to be a vague area of grammar, so I avoid
it because it is usually unnecessary. If you only give me one
word, I cannot successfully recast it, but if you set this word
in a sentence, I can usually express the sentence without that
word. 

> >4. How does one express infinitives? (Would they just be relegated to
> >participle forms?) For example:
> 
> Infinitives are "verbs as nouns" and thus are handled as one handles gerunds.

What? I was under the distinct impression that Klingon didn't
have infinitives. I'm sure I've heard ~mark say this a few
times. Am I misquoting you, !~mark?

> >Maltz likes to eat chocolate.
> 
> yuch Sopmo', tIv matlh. 
> Beacuse he eats chocolate, Maltz "enjoys".
> This works if one can use "tIv" intransitively in Klingon.

Perhaps you might replace {tIv} with {Quch}? Other than that
word choice, this is exactly how I would have done it.

> yuch Sop 'e' tIv matlh.
> Maltz enjoys that he eats chocolate.

Excellent.

For yet another alternative, I offer:

QuchmeH matlh yuch Sop ghaH.

"In order to be happy, Maltz eats chocolate.

> -QumpIn 'avrIn
> --
> Erich Schneider  [email protected]  http://tamsun.tamu.edu/~ers0925

charghwI'

Back to archive top level