tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 07 20:58:35 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
pronouns as verbs
>From: FHOREIN%[email protected]
>Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 19:31:10 -0500 (EST)
>Considering the statement that pronouns can only have noun suffixes: I hate to
>say it but it's wrong. Section 6.3, page 68. "pa'wIjDaq jIHtaH" and "pa'DajDaq
>ghaHtaH la''e'" are both presented as examples of pronouns substituting the
>verb "to be". While most persons on this list might not take advantage of this
>fact, it's still available. Thus I must ask again: is "jIghaH" permissable? I
>would say yes. But then again, it would make writing my translator easier, so
>I'm biased.
Even *if* you consider pronouns to be some sort of "regular" verb meaning
"to be" (how you can I don't know, considering it's the only verb that
changes its basic form to conjugate and requires "-'e'" on its subject),
you must also consider it conjugated, since Klingon verbs have no
non-finite forms. That is, "ghaH" means "he/she is", even as "Qong" means
"he/she sleeps" or "jIDoy'" means "I am tired" (i.e., it has its "prefix"
already attached). Now, how can I possibly attach a prefix to an already
prefixed verb? True, in the case of "Qong", the prefix is present but
zero, so removing it is simple enough, and anyway we know the base form of
the verb. But what is the stem form of the putative "pronoun verb"? How
do you remove the third-person prefix from "'oH" or "ghaH" or "bIH" or
"chaH"? (And while we're at it, since when does a *verb* conjugate
differently for speaking vs. non-speaking subjects, or for third-person
singular with third-person singular object differently from third-person
plural with third-person plural object? There's no *way* this "verb" is
normal). If you don't removbe the conjugation from "ghaH" that's already
implicit in it, how on earth can you expect to conjugate it *again* with a
prefix? Would you say "*jIbI'oj"? Besides, Okrand never said that the
pronouns were verbs. They aren't. They're chuvmey. They can have a
verbal *meaning*, and he explicitly said they could take verbal *suffixes*,
but he never said anything about their being verbs and taking verbal
*prefixes*. Sorry guys, I'm determined on this one. The grammarian has
spoken.
> joy'wI'
~mark