tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 30 02:56:35 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Hoghvam
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Hoghvam
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 15:53:42 EST
...
> 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.
I'm not so sure about this. I certainly accept the resulting Klingon
sentence, but I have some trouble considering {Hol} to be other than an
object here. I'm just saying that it looks like an object to me, especially
considering the direct/indirect nature of objects in Klingon. Also, on this
particular noun thing Krankor is citing, I've put a lot of thought into it
and except for those type 5 nouns or nouns that offer a time context for the
sentence, I'm hard pressed to come up with any other non-object, non-subject
nouns that relate to the main verb. I'm open to being educated. Meanwhile, I
don't think this example fits that category very well.
> Now, of course, it is possible that one could claim that ja'chuq, by
> being listed separately, is a full verb unto itself, not a
> combination of ja + -chuq, and, as such, it should be: Hol
> wIja'chuq. I personally do not subscribe to this theory, nor, I
> believe, do very many people here. But if you really wanted to do
> it that way, I couldn't tell you you were wrong.
>
> --Krankor
I completely agree that {Hol wIja'chuq} is WAAAAY ugly. There is simply
no grammatical rule by which that prefix and suffix can happen simultaneously
on the same word. I fall back to my usual compulsive urge to recast:
maja'chuqmeH Hol wIlo'
charghwI'