tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 25 02:07:21 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Duj pIm



charghwI' jangbogh nIchyon jang ghuy'Do wa''e':

>=> (This, incidentally, is why Krankor's argumentation on the basis of
'rintaH'
>=> in HolQeD 3:2 is so shaky. 
>=I don't think ANYBODY should base ANYTHING on the use of
>=rIntaH. 

>Well... not true. Okrand could have chosen a particle like rItlh to do
>the work of rIntaH, instead of a proper verb. And things like rIntaH *do*
>pop up in languages --- including the languages Okrand works on. The point
>is that Okrand as probably looking at rIntaH, *not* as a productive
>Sentence As Subject construction, but as a particle leftover from Klingon
>History. You need only compare the Melanesian Pidgin "em i dai pinis"
>= "he VERB-MARKER die finish" = "Heghpu'/ Hegh rIntaH".

>rintaH, like I said, is classic grammaticalisation --- and one could
envisage
>a scenario like this:

>1. Hegh ghaH. rIntaH wanI'.
>2. Hegh ghaH. rIntaH.
>3. Hegh rIntaH ghaH.
>4. Hegh rItlh ghaH.
>5. HeghrItlh ghaH.

Plausible theory. I could see 1-3 happening, but if the process is to
continue to 5, it will be extremely gradual, since {-ta'} still takes popular
precedence in normal usage. {rIntaH} is not bad, as charghwI' seems to imply
just because it's different and that it is a backfit (our
comparative/superlative construction is also quite bizarre-- Klingon grammar
does not have the perfect symmetrical shape of Esperanto or Classical Latin
or some such language, and it thus resembles a natural language). {rIntaH}
implies a dramatic irreversibility of the action, as if, now that it's done,
it's done for good. It expresses a meaning not quite achieved by a mere
{-ta'}.

>Indeed, we all know how our least favourite verb taH came about; but if
>Klingon was a real language, in all probability the verb taH would have
>come first, and the suffix -taH would have come about as the result of
>a process like what I've speculated for rIntaH.

>So yes, Okrand *is* making these things up, but he's also echoing things
>that human languages do historically...

If you still have a hard time with {rIntaH} or {taH} going from a position at
the end of a sentence to immediately after the verb, well, look at {qar'a'}
in indirect questions, where the position is variable.

It might have something to do with the fact that the subject is the only noun
that can go after the verb, and implicit subjects are so common. In practical
usage, Klingons may put elements like {rIntaH} or {qar'a'} at the end of
their sentences, but so often sentences end in verbs, that they may begin to
think of these elements as parts of the verb, and thus make a hypercorrection
in putting the subject after both the verb and this new element. Frankly, I'm
surprised that there aren't more constructions like this. But I won't do the
Proechel thing, and make some up.

"My name's Glen, and I say we should be able to adverbialize any verb by
putting after the main verb in the sentence--"

Sorry.

>=The others [decisions] DO reflect decisions made here, based upon
>=the lack of guidance from Okrand, which perhaps may soon be
>=filled in something like an indirect dialog.

>I admit: I'd rather he didn't fill anything in. I find our process of
>working things out ourselves fascinating.

I have to agree. Even the new information that Okrand has given us has never
really answered any of our questions. When we asked, "What's the deal with
{-ghach}??!!!", he told us how to say "music" and "song", for example. We've
gotten along quite excellently without him.

Some new vocab is nice from time to time, but the grammar needs no more
spicing up, as far as I'm concerned.


Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos



Back to archive top level