tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 29 05:21:19 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: TKD examples



>Subject: TKD examples
>Date: 94-11-28 18:36:19 EST
>From: [email protected] (William H. Martin)

>tlhInganpu', qajatlh.

nuqneH.

>The examples in TKD in the USEFUL KLINGON EXPRESSIONS
>frequently bother me. Today, I have recognized yet another
>lousey example (IMESHO, of course):

Oh no. My friend and pal, you are about to open a can of highly venomous
gharghmey. It naturally comes between the two of us that either I _agree_
with you very intensely, or I _disagree_ with you very, very intensely. Right
now, I'm doing one of those natural things. I'm also doing what's not natural
for me and keeping myself calm, as many people have advised me to do in these
situations, and I will reason this out. I can't bash you, because you have a
good point, which I nevertheless disagree with very intensely, as I pointed
out.

>nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'.

This is canon. This construction appears many times in canon. If we say it's
wrong now, it would cause a stir and rock the Klingon Language Community off
base from its Central Power. You see, we are really a theocracy. Here's a
little government lesson. Krankor is our Commander in Chief. He is currently
comatose, so Shoulson has become acting Commander in Chief until his return.
Then Schoen presides as King. But of course, we are a theocracy, because you
see, Okrand presides as God. We all worship his honored canon. Only the King
has contact with God, unless he gives express permission to one of his
serviles. Canon must be adhered to lest we start to list into chaos. Just
look at Proechel, the old revolutionary who took the language and turned it
into his own thing. He's headed for chaos unless we can slam some sense into
him. But my point is, canon is canon. And I will proceed to explain why I
believe you are wrong.

>This should obviously be:

>nuqDaq puchpa' 'oH.

>Why?

>Why ask why?

Because the more we know, the more we know we don't know.

[...]

>Basically, the question word nuqDaq is a locative, and as such,
>should not be the object of the pronoun being used as an
>adjective. It should just be at the beginning of the sentence.
>Since the sentence consists of a noun and a pronoun used as the
>verb "to be", that sentence should fit the norm for that kind
>of sentence, placing the noun first, then the pronoun. Period.

I understand the reasoning behind this. But the noun before a pronominal verb
like {'oH} is not the object of that verb. In other words, here's my line of
thought:

ghuy'Do jIH. tera'Daq jIH. Qanqor ghaH. Qo'noSDaq ghaH.
Qo'noSDaq ghaH Qanqor'e'.

{Qo'noSDaq Qanqor ghaH} would have to mean, "He is Krankor on Kronos". The
major point we disagree on lies herein: You say that a locative should not go
before a pronominal verb. If so, then {Qo'noSDaq jIH} would have to wrong.
I'll leave it alone now, because I think that something is nagging at you
enough that you'll fall back into place. If you re-reason this out, I think
you will come to terms that {nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'} is fine and acceptable.
Recall that the construction is first described in the grammatical sketch of
TKD. It is right, unless you wish to debate God. Sometimes that's a good idea
for us, but in this case I don't believe so. If you still do, then let's all
remain civilized, and don't get all bent out of shape like I do most of the
time, as my dad can attest to. Right, dad?

>charghwI'
>-- 

> \___
> o_/ \
> <\__,\
>  ">   | Get a grip.
>   `   |

qetlhHa' rurwI'lIj. 'IH je. rurwI' vI'oghchugh jIH, vaj chaq [Snipe] wamwI'
vIrurmoH. [Snipe] vIwamtaHvIS reH wanI' vItIv.

ghuy'Do


Back to archive top level