tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 25 14:14:18 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Grist for the mill..

ghItlh charghwI''e':

>According to [email protected]:
>> 
>> pIj <ta'be'> neH wIlo'. Heghpu'DI' ta', ta'be' Saw ta' loDnI''e'.

>Again, I'd press for {be'ta'} instead.

But she's not the emperor of the women, but the woman of the emperor. TKD
describes the N-N construction as translating "N2 of the N1". This means that
whatever the last noun is, is the actual thing which the noun preceding it
categorizes. {jolpa'} is a *room* associated with the transport beam.
{qIbHeH} is the *edge* associated with the galaxy. {HoSchem} is a *field*
associated with energy. {mu'tlhegh} is a *line* associated with words.
{tera'ngan} is an inhabitant associated with Earth. {mangghom} is a *group*
associated with a soldier. {nItlhpach} is a *claw* associated with the
finger. {may'Duj} is a *ship* associated with battles. {ro'qegh'Iwchab} is a
*pie* associated with Rokeg blood. {pu'beq} is a *crew* associated with
phasers. {quprIp} is a *council* associated with elders. {rojmab} is a
*treaty* associated with peace.

Have I made my point yet? If not, {QeDpIn} is a... ok then.

I trust you get my point. It is the last word of the compound or N-N
construction that describes the actual nature of the noun. Now, the queen in
_Hamlet_ is not a ruler as such. She is a *woman* associated with the
emperor; not an *emperess* associated with women.


And thus I still opt for {ta'be'}.


>> ta' HoH rIntaH loDnI'vam'e', Qo'noS che' neHmo' ghaH. 'e' ghojDI' *Hamlet*
>> bortaS nej. Suq'a'? (<--obvious sales pitch for Hamlet)

>Hmmm. While I dislike {rIntaH} in general, I believe that in
>ST3, the one line in which it is used places it AFTER the
>subject. You can't tell from the examples in TKD because they
>have no explicit noun as subject. I think the line is something
>like:

>lab'egh HablI' rIntaH.

There was no such line in the film. The line you were thinking of was
something approaching {HablI' Hu' labbeH}; altho I'm still unsure of the
second word. Plus the syntax is whacked out of shaped. But anyhow, what you
meant of course was this:

{qa'vam De' vIje' rIntaH}

Yes, implicit subject. So we ever-inquisitive minds must ask, "Where does
{rIntaH} go?" This is where we must do something drastic-- something
unthinkable-- something that sends chills of terror down the spines of the
bravest among us-- we have to REFER TO TKD!!! AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, and look what our faithful Last Resort has to say about {rIntaH} as a
syntactic aspect marker:

"The meaning of {-ta'} can also be indicated syntactically. That is, instead
of using the suffix {-ta'}, a special verbal construction can follow the
_*/VERB\*_ which indicates the accomplished action. . . The resulting
construction, {rIntaH}, . . . is used to indicate that action denoted by the
_*/PRECEDING\*_ is a fait accompli: it is done and cannot be undone." [TKD
4.2.7, emphasis added]. And that's that. Plus, everyone who's ever used
{rIntaH} before now has put it directly after the verb.

I don't care what anyone feels about {rIntaH}. It's there in the language
now, and it might as damn well be used.

>Yes, the line is very strange. I remember it meaning something
>like, "The transceiver has finished transmitting itself." If
>someone else has the text to ST3 handy, please help out. As I
>remember it, I think it deserves the alltime weirdo award among
>all canon. Mostly, it succeeds in making sounds while the
>actress's English-speaking lips move.
 
If there's an All-time Weirdness Award to give out, it ought to go to the
line in ST5. Refer to HolQeD 3:2 pg.14.

>> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos

>charghwI'

jIjatlh rIntaH.

Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos














































{be'ta'} is Queen of the Amazons.

Back to archive top level