tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 03 22:09:35 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Rovers and more...
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Rovers and more...
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 11:07:54 -0500
- In-Reply-To: "Matt Gomes"'s message of 4 Feb 1994 07:13:30 -0800 <[email protected]>
>From: "Matt Gomes" <[email protected]>
>Date: 4 Feb 1994 07:13:30 -0800
> Reply to: RE>Rovers and more...
>As ~mark was slapping mat around, he said:
Slapping around? I suppose in a Klingon forum I should be pleased to be
considered so violent, though I wasn't trying to be...
>>"bIHoH"?? That's certainly wrong. That means "you kill (no subject)" I
>>presume you meant "jIHoH". I think you're not fully understanding how
>Yes! Sorry! I keep mixing my "jI-" and my "bI"... one of these days it
>will gel...
You'll get it sooner or later. I periodically forget the difference
between ma- and wI- and DI-.
>So, ~mark, what you're saying is that in EVERY sentence, the verb MUST
>have a prefix no matter what? Am I groking this correctly... Then there
>are the times when the prefix is "none", but it's still a prefix
>(just a blank one). jIlugh'a'?
Um, I think so. In English, every sentence has to have a finite verb,
right? That's a verb which is conjugated to some person and some tense.
It's part of the structure of the language: you need a main, finite verb.
So too in Klingon, you need a main finite verb. Klingon doesn't really
have infinitives, so that narroes it even more. How do you conjugate
Klingon verbs? You use the prefixed. Sometimes the prefixes are null, as
you note, but they're always considered to be there;l that's how verbs
appear in sentences, just like they always appear conjugated in English
sentences. Now, there's room for argument as to whether or not
nominalizers like "-wI'" and "-ghach" go on the bare stem-form of the verb,
or if they really go on true finite verbs, and the examples we see all
happen to have null prefixes (which would be the most common one anyway).
If the latter position is true, then you could say things like "nIleghwI'"
for "that/those which that see us" (nominalizing "nIlegh", he/she/it/they
see(s) us). This has not yet been attested in canon, but it's seen
occasional use on this list.
>In regards to multiple rovers... We only have a couple. -Qo' HAS to come
>last (unless followed by a Type 9 suffix). -Ha' ALWAYS comes after
>the verb. That just leaves -be' and -qu'. You're saying that -be' and -qu'
>can occur multiple times in a verb string?
Well, we have canonical evidence of "-be'" and "-qu'" in the same verb:
"pIHoHvIpbe'qu'" appears on page 49 of TKD in black and white. Can there
be two "-be'"s or two "-qu'"s? I would think so. Some of those usages may
not be very well-formed, like using two "-qu'"s in a row would certainly
smack of over-exaggeration, but that's a side point.
>Qapla'! (and thanks...)
>-mat
~mark