tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 20 20:13:12 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: abstract "in" uses
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: abstract "in" uses
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 08:51:53 EST
On Mar 16, 5:10pm, "...Paul" wrote:
> Subject: abstract "in" uses
>
> I have a question that I'm not sure about.
>
> -Daq is a noun suffix that denotes a relative location (in the room, at
> the store, etc).
>
> I recently wanted to ask a friend, "When will you be able to speak to me
> in Klingon?"
>
> I wasn't seriously considering "properness", so I simply said "ghorgh
> jIHDaq tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh'a'" (In retrospect, I'm not even really sure I
> put ghorgh in the right place; I did it off-the-cuff).
If nobody else gets back to you on this, you probably want {-vaD} and
{-laH}, as in:
ghorgh jIHvaD tlhIngan Hol DajatlhlaH'a'
> But then I thought maybe I should have said "ghorgh tlhIngan HolDaq
> chojatlh'a'", but this use of the "locative suffix" just didn't sound
right...
Just drop the locative altogether, and this sentence will be as correct
as the other suggestion:
ghorgh tlhIngan Hol chojatlhlaH'a'
> Which is right (or, as I think, neither is, so what would be correct)?
>
> ...Paul
Locative is pretty much limited to spacial location. Your first guess is
not altogether wrong, though the connotation is that you want to know when
the other person will speak toward the space which you occupy. The {-vaD}
suffix more specifically connotes that the communication is intended to be
for your actual benefit.
The second example sounds strange because the verbal prefix does not
agree with the existing object, but this has become a convention of Klingon.
A verb can have multiple objects because Klingon does not distinguish between
direct objects and indirect objects, so the prefix can indicate an indirect
object while the noun spells out a direct object.
> Qapla' Dachavjaj
SoHvaD je
charghwI'