tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 08 13:28:03 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: pronouns and <-bogh>

According to Silauren Half-Elven:
> 
> 
> in my <Hol> class last night, we (the students) were given a quiz.  one of 
> the questions/problems/whatever was to use a "to be" construction in a 
> sentence.  
> 
> being the masochist that i am, i decided to try my hand at a couple of 
> english cliche's.  yeah, i know that they probably didn't translate well, 
> but that's okay.
> 
> here's the two sentences in <tlhIngan Hol> that i turned in:
> 
> 1)	'e' jIHbogh jIH

Close. First of all, the special pronoun {'e'} is used to
represent the previous sentence in a sentence-as-object
construction. In this case, there is no such sentence. If you
drop that first word, then maybe you are saying what you intend
to say. Of course, most Klingons would wonder why you bothered
to break a pleasant silence for such an uninspiring observation.

> 2)	DuboQqangbogh jup ghaH jup'e' DaboQnISlu'bogh

Not even close. The last word, in particular, is a jumbled
mess. The {-lu'} suffix tells you that the subject is
indefinite, and when the prefix suggests that there is a third
person object, then the person and number of the prefix's
SUBJECT actually points to the OBJECT of the verb. The classic
example:

Daqawlu'taH = One remembers you; you are remembered.

This means your word without the {-bogh} means "One needs to
help you; you must be helped." So where does {jup'e'} fit in?
Well, it doesn't. That's the point. These pieces don't fit
together, and that's BEFORE you try to work {-bogh} into it.

jup DaboQnISbogh ghaH jupna''e'.

A true friend is a friend who needs that you help him.

Hmmm. Nope. That really means, "A true friend is a friend whom
you must help." Hmmm. I think I like that message more than the
original. After all, if a true friend needs help, there is no
honorable way to evade the call to help him, right?

But back to the sentence... I often fail on the first try.

jup DaboQ 'e' poQnISchugh ghaH vaj jupna' ghaH.

If a friend needs to demand that you help him, then he is a
true friend.

This gets back to the original meaning. If a friend is
dependent upon you enough to need to ask something of you, then
the friend will tend to act in your best interest (in order to
get the favor he needs). Humans are a cynical lot.

> now, the first one i'm not too worried about.  well, a little bit, but 
> i'm pretty sure it says what i think it says.  now, the second one i'm 
> more worried about, simply because i'm not totally certain how <-bogh> 
> works.  as i understand it, tacking <-bogh> onto a verb makes that verb 
> or sentence dependent on a noun, which may be a part of another whole 
> sentence. 

Close. More accurately, the verb with the {-bogh} somehow
specifies or describes the head noun attached to it. Shoot the
enemy who is standing. Qambogh jagh yIbach. Now, you know to
ignore the enemy who is sitting and focus your attention on the
one who is standing. That's the sort of thing {-bogh} does for
you. Notice that the verb "stand" has nothing to do with the
verb "shoot". The whole reason the verb "stand" is there is to
describe or specify which enemy is the object of "shoot".

> also, in the second (as well as the first) sentence, i'm a 
> tiny bit worried that i'm not using the pronouns correctly.  

Basically, a pronoun can be used grammatically like a noun or
grammatically like a verb. As a noun, it usually stands alone,
though it may get a type 5 suffix. No other noun suffix tends
to make sense.

Pronouns can also be used as verbs (to be, usually meaning, to
be a member of a group of nouns or to be the equal of, like
{tlhIngan jIH} or {pongwIj 'oH charghwI''e'}.) As verbs, they
also often have no affixes, though verbal suffixes are often
used with these "to be" verb/pronouns. 

> aside from those comments, the only other area in which i'm concerned is, 
> second sentence again, the use of <-lu'> on <DaboQnISlu'bogh>.

This is a confusing suffix. Basically, if there is a verb
prefix that implies a third person singular object, then you
get the number and person of the SUBJECT implied by the prefix
and use that person and number to specify the OBJECT of the
verb. You already know that the real subject is the indefinite
"one", so you take the information that normally specifies the
subject and use it to specify the object instead. Why? Well,
because Okrand says so. It's a linguistic curve ball.

Also note that such use of transitive verbs with {-lu'} also
have a passive voiced equivalent in translation. {Daqawlu'}
means both "One remembers you," and "You are remembered."

To make things further complicated, what happens when a verb
with {-lu'} on it is intransitive? Well, in that case, you use
the null prefix and ignore the curve ball. You don't reverse
the role of subject and object. ba'lu'. One sits. Note that
this has no passive voiced equivalent. I personally had a great
deal of difficulty with this concept for a long time. Krankor
eventually got through.

> Qapla'
> --naQ'avwI'
> --IKV Starhunter

charghwI'

Back to archive top level