tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 08 13:39:51 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: <Hol wIja'chuq> was: Re:...

>*sighs*  You are ignoring the key word in Qanqor's post:

> *usually*

>Althought the words that precede the rest of the sentence *usually* take 
>a type 5, it says right there in the KD that they do not HAVE to.  True, 
>this may only be included because of the special cases of naDev, pa', 
>etc... but my 'instincts' say this isn't so.  Yeah, I know 'instincts' 
>don't count for squat, but I think this would be soemthing worth 
researching/looking into.

DujlIj yIlachHa'Qo' 'ej yIvuvtaH. Of course your instincts count. Instincts
have everything to do with how languages are used.

But the above paragraph of trI'Qal I am very much glad for. You people are
*FINALLY* realizing what I've been screaming for months!!! {-Daq} is not
necessary half the times you use it. In fact in TKD 3.3.5 in the part on the
locative it states quite clearly that {-Daq} when used with verbs of motion
is redundant. For some reason I can't hope to ever know, no one seems to
realize this until *I* point it out to them. {ghoS} is transitive! OK? Say it
with me 3000 times until it's in your head. {Duj vIghoS} is entirely
acceptable. The {-Daq} in {DujDaq jIghoS} is as redundant as the {-pu'} in
{qIpchuq puqpu'}. Realize also that virtually all verbs of motion are like
this:

{qach vIqet. tengchaH wIpaw. Sajraj boyIt.}

There's just no room to argue. It's there in TKD. Plus, just to emphasize my
point, {-Daq} on {pa'} (when it means "thereabouts"), {Dat}, and {naDev} is
illegal. I would also venture that it's illegal on {vogh}, but don't bet the
mortgage on it.

>[deletions for brevity] 
>> Though I don't find Hol wIja'chuq *that* ugly, the recasting is excellent.
>> As you'll have noticed, I myself would just say [maja'chuqtaHvIS] Hol
wIqel.


><Hol wIja'chuq> is definitely ugly.  It is flat-out ungrammatical.  Yes, 
>I *know* <ja'chuq> is a seperate dictionary entry, but that doesn't 
>change the fact that what we have here is a verb with a type 1 
>attached... and the grammar, as we know it, doesn't allow wI- at the 
>beginning of such verbs.  Make sense?

Yeah yeah. It doesn't conform to perfect logic, but then.. I feel quite
acceptant of {Hol wIja'chuq}. It's rather colloquial (think of it, Klingon
slang now!), but it makes perfect sense to even novices in the language. I
personally find it more natural than the stiff {maja'chuqtaHvIS Hol wIqel} or
some such. You see, if an American goes, "Lugnuts? We ain't got no more
lugnuts!", he/she/it is in no danger of confusing anyone. You see, languages
work by what people understand. They most certainly do not have to conform to
total logic, as any natural language will demonstrate in an instant.

>--HoD trI'Qal
>  tlhwD lIy So'

Yes trI'Qaloy, your instincts do count for squat. *?*


Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos

(that's guido with a capital G for God it's such a thrill to be me!!!!!!)*

Back to archive top level