tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 11 10:06:41 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tu'lu' vs. lutu'lu'

According to Jeremy Cowan:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 10 Sep 1994, William H. Martin wrote:
> 
> > According to janSIy:
> > > When using the word tu'lu' where does the noun go?
> 
> > The NOUN is the OBJECT, which PRECEEDS {tu'lu'}. It is treated
> > like a passive subject in translation, but it is still the
> > object.
> 
>   Forget the English translation!  On page 39, TKD gives us the example of 
> Daqawlu'.  Here the thing being found is obviously "you" and is used as 
> the subject.  That would imply that the "object" that you refer to above is 
> actually the subject.

Check closer. This is quite confusing, but Okrand is very
consistent. While he uses verbal prefixes in this
reversed-subject-object way, he always places any explicit
nouns in the object position. The example you cite has no such
explicit noun, but in the {tu'lu'} section, note that {puqpu'}
preceeds {tu'lu'}, in {naDev puqpu' tu'lu'}, just as it does in
the USEFUL KLINGON EXPRESSIONS section, with {naDev tlhInganpu'
tu'lu'}. If you don't like that because {tu'lu'} is a special
case, then look at {tlhaqwIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'} in that same
section. Also, in ST5, Klaa's girlfriend/assistant says,
{nImbuS wejDaq 'ejDo *'enterpIS* ngeHlu'} "The Starship
Enterprise has been dispatched to Nimbus III."

Want more? In CK, we have {pa'vo' pagh leghlu'} "The room has no
view." I'll pass on bringing up "May your coordinates be free
of tribbles," in PK, which also fits this pattern, because with
the {-jaj} the word order could be skewed. Still, from that
same source, we have {De' lI' Sovlu'DI' chaq DoHa'} "Knowledge
of useful information may be unfortunate." It is rare that we
have a confusing grammatical point so clearly played out for us
in canon so many times. I'm afraid that this one is iron clad.
I can't find a single instance of him placing a noun after a
{-lu'} suffixed verb to indicate a subject/object.

Have you found something I've missed?

> I'm not sure anyone knows the answer.  Maybe it's something to ask Marc 
> Okrand for the issue after this one.
> 
> janSIy  }}:+D>

There are so many other matters that are more vague than this
that need more urgent attention. My list so far:

1. -ghach. (Looks like Lawrence is on this one already. Still,
with so many other things on the list, I can't see how he could
spend half an hour on -ghach.)

2. What is the spelling of unwritten new words in canon?

3. Apposition in general and good use of the verb {pong} in
particular.

4. "Which" as a question word, as in, "I don't care which one,"
which he sloppily dodged in ST3, or as in "Which one do you
want?

5. Comparatives with pronouns.

6. Comparative questions.

7. Can we use the generic "it" to act as a Sentence as Subject
in the way that {'e'} acts as the generic "that" for Sentence
as Object?

8. When a noun-noun construction combines with a relative
clause in ambiguous ways, can we use {-'e'} to disambiguate the
noun the rest of the construction is modifying, in defiance of
the rule in 3.4 that says the {-'e'} can't follow the first of
two nouns in a noun-noun construction?

9. Can we get some help with adverbials? If we can't get more
of them, can we have some sort of grammatical construction that
allows us to use adjectival verbs as adverbials, kind of like
Okrand's recent use of {motlh} as an adverbial? Clearly, HE
runs into problems with the limits of adverbials as he gives
them. 

10. Can we please have a comparative that is a LITTLE more
flexible or at least loosen up the one we've got just a little?

That's it so far. Anybody got anything major to add?

charghwI'

Back to archive top level