tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 06 22:02:09 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
No Subject
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 09:58:43 -0400
- In-Reply-To: Bill Willmerdinger
> 's message of Tue, 05 Jul 1994 20:35:00 -0500 <[email protected]>
Subject: *boHem*ngan bomnong
>From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger
> )
>Date: Tue, 05 Jul 1994 20:35:00 -0500
> >teHbej'a' yInvam
> >neH teHlaw''a' 'oH
> Uu>
> Uu> "neH" follows the verb (or noun), unlike other adverbials.
>"Every rule has an exception".... So, it would be "teHlaw''a' 'oH neH"? I'll
>skip this problem in the rest of my reply.
Um, here I'd use "teHlaw''a' neH 'oH". See, according to TKD, "neH"
follows a verb to trivialize its meaning, or a noun to indicate it's the
only one. "teHlaw' 'oH neH" would mean "only it seems real", while
"teHlaw' neH 'oH" is "it only seems real".
Hmm, for poetry I guess this works, but in general it may not be the best.
Especially since you're asking a question, and the question is on the "neH"
aspect... almost like you want to say "teHlaw' *neH'a' 'oH?" Your
distinction between "real" and "fantasy" hinges on the "-law'" suffix;
perhaps we should be using "-qu'" to emphasize that suffix (as opposed to
the main verb), giving us "teHlaw'qu'('a')".
>I've had second thoughts about that one myself, and I may rephrase it
>entirely. Possibly to wanwI'mey vISeHbe' - "I do not control events." But
>I'll try your suggestion as well.
Yes; my way is still stuck in the English metaphor of the landslide...
either way.
> >mInlIj DapoSmoH
> Uu> It's a command, right? I want you to open your eyes. So it should be
> Uu> "tIpoSmoH" (plural! eyeS!)
>Okay on the imperative. The plural bit... well, I tried to keep it
>"singable" and the extra syllable really made it worse as it stands. Another
>would have made it impossible. However, "the lack of a special suffix for
>plural does not always indicate that the noun is singular." TKD 3.3.2. :-)
Oh, certainly! I never meant to imply that you should use "mInDu'lIj"; I
was just emphasizing the plural to make sure you knew why I said "tI-" and
not "yI-", since "tI-" is often a forgotten prefix. "mInlIj tIpoSmoH"
(argh, I keep thinking "tISopmoH"; entirely the wrong image!) is completelt
correct and in fact very nice and shows an independence from English
thinking. The noun's plural, the verb shows it, we needn't hard on it by
putting a suffix on the noun *too*.
> >nuqDaq ghoStaH SuS
> >potlhbe'bej 'oH jIHmeH
> >jIHmeH......
> Uu>
> Uu> jIHmeH? In order that I be (something)? Erk. Should probably be
> Uu> "jIHvaD" and come at the beginning of the sentence (yes, that screws up
> Uu> the structure, but that's life).
>Okay.... Is it allowable to use noun suffixes on "chuvmey"? I couldn't
>recall any examples of such. I admit that "jIHmeH" is awkward, but I at least
>had a canonical use of verb suffixes in pronouns. I prefer "jIHvaD" myself,
>and in fact had that in the last verse where I have "jIHmeH" in the earlier
>verses.
Well, pronoun chuvmey can be used as verbs, yes, but bear in mind what they
mean. "jIH" as a verb means "I am X" (X is the "object"), so "jIHmeH"
would be "in order that I be X"... which I can see as a useful construction
in some circumstances, but not here.
Can you put type 5 suffixes on pronoun chuvmey? We had long assumed it
without proof... but there is proof. Conversation Klingon tape (or is it
the other tape?) has a sentence: "DaH jIHvaD jIngev": "Sell it to me now".
So you can put "-vaD" on pronouns.
I hasten to add that I don't believe in putting "-vaD" or "-mo'" or any
suffixes on the pronoun "'e'". I'm afraid I don't have much proof for
this, as it is grouped among th pronouns, but TKD says that "'e'" and "net"
are "always" used as the objects of sentences, so it wouldn't make sense to
permit "-vaD" or "-vo'" or "-mo'" or the like on them. Same with verb
suffixes; I don't believe you can use "'e'" verbally (besides, what would
it mean?)
> Uu> Hey, good aspect use! Works fpor me anyway.
>That's one area I've tried to get down pat. I keep refering to your HolQeD
>article for examples.
*smile* thanks. It's tough to break out of the English tense-usage.
> >wa'leS poHvam naDev jIcheghbe'chugh
> Uu>
> Uu> I suppose "qaStaHvIS wa'leS poHvam".... I dunno, when you need the
> Uu> qaStaHvIS isn't completely clear.
>Why would I need it at all?
Well, this has been discussed here before. We know that some nouns can be
used adverbially (as in Okrandian sentences like "DaHjaj jI'oj"), standing
at the beginning of a sentence with no marking and setting a timeframe.
But normally, nouns are either subjects or objects or they have some sort
of suffix. "-Daq" is a spatial "in", and we whale on people for misusing
it for time, so that's not it. We know this for the same reason that we
know that you can't always just use bare nouns as timeframes, from the
sentence "qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD", where Okrand
deliberately used the construction "qaStaHvIS...". And intuitively, with
long noun-phrases, I'd think few of us would expect to see something like
"jaj vIparbogh nargh qama'" for "the prisoner escaped on the day I hated".
So "qaStaHvIS" (and sometimes qaSDI') are used more frequently, to be clear
as to what's a time-adverb and what isn't.
~mark