tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 19 06:34:30 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
<Hol wIja'chuq> was: Re: KLBC: Hoghvam
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: <Hol wIja'chuq> was: Re: KLBC: Hoghvam
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 17:50:40 -0400
- In-Reply-To: "HoD trI'Qal"'s message of Mon, 18 Jul 1994 18:03:51 -0400 (EDT) <[email protected]>
>From: "HoD trI'Qal" <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 18:03:51 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>
>> Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Will Martin jay'?
>>
>> Quoting HoD QanQor from the end of March (I'm clearing up my Mail backlog)
>>
>> => Second, "Hol maja'chuq" is certainly correct Klingon for "We discuss
>> => [a,the] language". While it may *look* like the wrong prefix, it is
>> => not. Hol is NOT the object here, it is one of those other nouns
>> => "indicating something other than subject or object", which go
>> => "first, before the object noun", as per 6.1, page 60. While such
>> => nouns usually take a type 5 noun suffix, they are not required to.
>> => This sentence fits that case. There simply is no object per se,
>> => having been precluded by the -chuq suffix.
>>
>> Will couldn't accept this analysis, and neither can I. The only time where
>> a type 5 suffix is known to be not used is -Daq with pa', naDev, and Dat,
>> and (implicitly) temporal nouns, which don't have a type 5 suffix to take
>> anyway. Furthermore, the only suffixes that could possibly assign a case role
>> to Hol here are -mo' (which is iffy, and whyever elide the -mo'?) and -'e'.
Well, also "-vo'"...
>*sighs* You are ignoring the key word in Qanqor's post:
> *usually*
>Althought the words that precede the rest of the sentence *usually* take
>a type 5, it says right there in the KD that they do not HAVE to. True,
>this may only be included because of the special cases of naDev, pa',
>etc... but my 'instincts' say this isn't so. Yeah, I know 'instincts'
>don't count for squat, but I think this would be soemthing worth
>researching/looking into.
Actually, there's some evidence at least for certain cases (remember the
qaStaHvIS discussion here?) We have "DaHjaj jI'oj" in canon, and DaHjaj is
a noun. So we can have nouns for time-phrases unmarked. I'm not sure if
that applies here, but perhaps it does. I wouldn't be at all surprised if
Klingon permitted unmarked nouns in other "cases"... and they'd go at the
beginning of sentences, like all other non-subject/non-object parts.
>--HoD trI'Qal
> tlhwD lIy So'
~mark