tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 15 07:48:45 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qaqIHneS! - corrections:-)
>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 05:50:57 -0800
>From: [email protected] (Astrid Jekat)
>Greetings!
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, Astrid Jekat wrote:
>> > Holvam chu' ghojmeH naDev ghitlh jIneH.
>>
>> You would say: Holvam chu' vIghojmeH naDev jIghIlth vIneH.
>> Each of the verbs require the proper prefix indicating that the subject
>> of the verb is {jIH}. And since {jIghItlh} is the object of the verb
>> {neH}, it needs to be {vIneH} because {jIneH} indicates the verb has no
>> object.
>Right. I had forgotten that thlIngan Hol is a redundant language, and
>doesn't permit the dropping of prefixes, subjects etc. except in clipped
>Klingon. Actually, this repetitive and slightly heavyhanded mannery of
>expression fits Klingon character very nicely...
See if you can get your mailer to fold lines for you, please? :)
It don't know if this is necessarily redundancy or heavy-handedness. It's
just that verbs have to be conjugated to conform to the subject and object,
and if you choose to repeat that information in a pronoun, that doesn't
change anything. Just as in English, we have to say "she does." Since
we're saying "she", why do we need to conjugate "do" into "does"? After
all, it's known to be third-person singular present indicative from
context; we might as well just say "*she do". But we don't. The
conjugation is obligatory. English is redundant in requiring the pronoun
as well (even in a case like "am" which can only go with "I") in normal
speech; Klingon uses them only for emphasis.
Of course, finding this method redundant and heavy-handed is a matter of
personal taste, and I could never claim you were actually "wrong."
~mark