tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 15 09:26:54 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Personification and 'it'.
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Personification and 'it'.
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 12:26:49 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Kevin Britton" at Dec 14, 94 10:10 pm
According to Kevin Britton:
>
> In writing, or speaking for that matter, do tlhInganpu' use
> personification (For example, 'the ship is ready, she looks great.' Also
> applies to animals, and other inanimate objects.)
> If not, is there a suffix for posession by an 'it'? TKD lists
> his/hers, but *never* makes a mention of it suffixes.
> Thanks in advance.
I've noticed this void and have no answer, other than to
explicitly use a noun-noun possessive construction for every
possession involving a non-speaking entity. One could presume
from this that Klingons attribute possession only to beings
capable of language, though the association of items with
non-speaking entities (like the ship's hull) makes for
possession in English constructions. Okrand simply didn't say,
in any canon source.
> batlh bIHeghjaj (I think that's it, don't have my TKD to reference. In
> any event, Qapla')
majQa'! matlhejchuqtaHvIS batlh maHeghjaj, jupwI'!
> SoghHom KaaDaQ' IKV quljev'a'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |