tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 09 04:56:41 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Adverbs, gerunds, participles, et al.
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Adverbs, gerunds, participles, et al.
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 16:52:50 -0400
- In-Reply-To: Mark E. Shoulson's message of Tue, 9 Aug 1994 16:04:05 -0400 <[email protected]>
[ This got cut off. Here comes the full one ]
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 8 Aug 94 23:25:10 EDT
I think it's important to state that the *questions* here are ill-posed.
How do you say adverbs? Infiniteves? Gerunds? These are questions that
are trying to map Klingon onto English, as though you could translate just
by substituting words. It doesn't work like that. Languages don't have
directly mappable elements. Lots of languages (like Klingon) simply don't
have infinitives, say, and do quite well without them. Asking "What are
Klingon X's like" for some linguistic feature X implies that Klingon must
be so like the langauge you're familiar with it translates simply. And
often, it isn't.
>charghwI'vo:
>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?)
Naw, it works dandy. That's what "Da" is *for*. To indicate people being
and/or behaving in a certain manner. An E-Primist would say that you
*can't* talk about him *being* a greedy person, since after all, greedy is
as greedy does.
>> 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."
All of which works very well, with varying shades of meaning. There
needn't be only one translation. 'Cept that it should be "Dabogh", no '.
>> >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}.
Oh, I long ago realized that "-meH" is much better here than "-taHvIS".
You're quite right to recommend it higher. I thought up "-taHvIS" first
because I didn't tyhink of "-meH", and suggested it. When "-meH" was
brought up as a counterproposal, I certainly agreed that it was/is
superior. See, you're using "-meH" as it was meant to be used: to mark
purpose clauses. And it works just fine. By all means, "-meH" in
preference to "-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.
Yep.
>> >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?
Klingon doesn't have infinitives. Not true ones anyway. That doesn't
mean it can't handle things that other languages use infinitives for.
Infinitives, properly, are verbs *not* restricted (made "finite") with
respect to person and/or time. Klingon verbs only appear conjugated with a
subj/obj prefix (perhaps a null one). But things like sentences as objects
are usually used in Klingon to treat verbs (i.e. sentences) as nouns. "I
hope to see you": "qalegh 'e' vItul" (I hope that I see you). When the
infinitive ( averb used like a noun) is the subject, we have to get more
creative, using the various sentence-as-subject tricks, since Klingon has
no true sentence-as-subject construction.
>> >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.
Yeah. We know "tIv" can be used transitively (sentence in CK about humans
liking to eat burnt animals) No evidence for usnig it intransitively. I
know people who insist that you can't use it intransitively in English
either!
~mark