tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 18 11:41:57 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qaqIHneS !
>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 22:21:40 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>In a message dated 95-12-17 15:09:47 EST, you write:
>>Here's another of the rare cases where Klingon must use a noun to express
>>what an English verb means. Try {"Indiana"Daq 'oH juHwIj'e'}.
>>
>>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>>
>>
>I really like the construction you just suggested.
>However, I will point out what I find to still be a possible error. You
>consistently leave {-taH} off the copulative {'oH}, etc. Should your
>sentence read {*Indiana*Daq 'oHtaH juHwIj'e'}? RE: TKD p27, Sec. 3.3.5.
> This tells me that Klingon apparently cannot have a person or thing,
>referred to by a personal pronoun, at a place for only a critical moment.
> The person or thing must continue to be at the location, even for a short
>span of time. On the other hand, the Appendix has entries: {nuqDaq 'oH Qe'
>QaQ'e} and {nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'}. While I cannot argue against existing
>facts, I feel that a person or thing needs to continue to be at a location;
>so, I add {-taH} to the personal pronouns when the sentence contains a
>locative clause.
>Perhaps {'oH} and {bIH} do not need {-taH}, while pronouns referring to
>sentient beings do?
I don't know. I don't read the examples in TKD as being to the exclusion
of all else. Okrand says (p.27), that -taH -=>*MAY*<=- occur in sentences
like "pa'Daq jIHtaH". And on p.68 he says that the pronouns are followed
by verb-suffixes *WHERE APPROPRIATE*. Since the appropriateness of "-taH"
is determined by the intent of the speaker, that means to me that it's up
to the speaker to determine whether or not the continuous aspect of the
action needs to be expressed with -taH.
~mark