tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 23 22:34:41 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Day to Die
According to R.B Franklin:
>
> charghwI'vo':
...
> > jIHeghrupmo' jaj QaQ 'oH DaHjaj'e'.
> >
> > "Because I am ready to die, today is a good day."
>
> If I wished to invert this sentence and say "Since today is a good day,
> I am ready to die," where would I put {-mo'}? In other words, how do you
> use verb suffixes in sentences which do not have a verb?
While, based on my one brief conversation with Okrand, I agree
with you that the sentence {tlhIngan jIH} has no verb, TKD does
say that pronouns are used as verbs and can take verbal
suffixes. Linguists here take the "if it walks like a duck and
quacks like a duck..." argument and say that in this setting
the pronoun effectively IS a verb, and so in {tlhIngan jIH} the
sentence HAS a verb and that verb is {jIH}.
Okrands comments during that event (and like anyone, he has a
right to either change his mind or to claim that I did not
receive his meaning well) pointed to his interest in making the
language very different from English in particular. He wanted
to avoid the verb that English leans on so heavily: "to be".
Saying, {tlhIngan jIH} is not all that different from saying,
"Me Tarzan." Still, TKD gives us specific examples of pronouns
with the verb suffix {-taH} and no explicit language banning
any other specific verbal suffix. Meanwhile, I would highly
discourage heavily suffixed pronouns. Doing that is pretty much
missing the point that a pronoun is a member of the set chuvmey
and is not completely a verb. It NEVER takes a verbal prefix,
for example, and it is its own subject. The grammatical
construction using it to link two other nouns by placing one in
the subject position and adding the suffix {'e'} is unusual
enough to warn you that there is something a little different
about pronouns used as verbs.
> From reading Sec.
> 6.3, it appears to me any sentence without a verb must at least use a
> pronoun and the pronoun takes the place of the verb.
Essentially, there are no sentences without a verb. The pronoun
is acting as the verb. Sentences can consist of only verbs, and
perhaps only exclammatory words (like {maj} or {Qu'vatlh},
which are not verbs), but nouns and other chuvmey are optional.
> Would it be correct to say the following:
>
> vulqangan SoH'a' pagh romuluSngan SoH'a'?
> romuluSngan jIHbe'qu'.
> jaj QaQ 'oHmo' DaHjaj'e' jIHeghrup.
I believe all of these to be correct. While someone might whine
about the suffix {-'a'} being ambiguous because it can be
either a noun suffix or a verb suffix and the pronoun can be
used either as a noun or a verb, considering the pronouns as
augmented nouns in the FIRST sentence is ABSURD. I will suggest
that the first sentence might more commonly be seen as:
vulqangan romuluSngan ghap SoH'a'?
Besides being more concise, it also removes another ambiguity,
since {pagh} can either be a conjunction or a number, while
{ghap} is only a conjunction. It is a minor point, but a
beginner might find the newer example easier to parse.
The most interesting aspect of your example here is that
Klingon is missing a question word. We have what, when, where,
why and how, but we don't have which. It is one of those picky
little things experienced Klingonists like to argue about.
As for what verbal suffixes should definitely NOT be applied to
pronouns, well, I'd rule out Type 1, {-lu'}, {-ghach} and
{-wI'}. You can test most of them with the sentence {SuvwI'
SoH-} followed by the suffix of choice. Some of them require
unusual circumstances to justify, like {-bogh}, and some
provide some interesting possibilities, like {Duy'a' jIHQo'!}
or or a very insulting {SuvwI' SoHHa'!}, which, while difficult
to specifically translate into English, is a VERY clear
statement in Klingon. "You are one sorry excuse for a soldier."
Hmmm. Then again, I imagine that when a Klingon prince is
turned into a toad, then kissed and turns back into a prince,
he could justifiably say, {jIH'eghqa'ta'.}
> My next question is can pronouns also take noun suffixes?
>
> jIHvaD cha'pujqutmey ngevta' verengan.
Yes. As for which noun suffixes make sense with pronouns, your
only safe bet is Type 5. Type 1 would require a very unusual
circumstance to justify, as might be the case with Type 3, but
Types 2 and 4 are definitely illegal. Pronouns already express
whether they are singular or plural and even with my bizarre
imagination, I can't come up with a circumstance that justifies
putting a possessive on a pronoun. On this topic, notice that
pronouns are never used in noun-noun posessive constructs. The
Type 4 noun suffixes already carry this meaning.
> I suppose what I am trying to get at is whether Klingon pronouns
> actually function as both verbs and nouns?
With the above limits (and perhaps others I can't think of at
the moment), they do function as either a noun or a verb, but
not both at the same time. By that, I mean you can't use both
noun and verb suffixes at the same time, since the nominalizing
suffixes don't really work with pronouns.
You might think, "Wait a minute. In {tlhIngan jIH} the pronoun
is acting as both the noun "I" and the verb "am", but you must
remember that in Klingon, ALL verbs represent a pronoun level
subject and object. Here {jIH} is grammatically behaving as a
verb only.
> Lastly, I wanted to thank you and the other grammarians for expending
> the time and patience to put up with me and the other newbies and answering
> the voluminous number of questions thrown at you.
I enjoy it. It makes me think. Without your questions, I would
never have considered {jIH'eghqa'ta'}.
> Satlho'neS!
>
> yoDtargh
charghwI'