tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 20 08:38:34 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: locatives (was KLBC: Win 95 "Klingon-ized")
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: locatives (was KLBC: Win 95 "Klingon-ized")
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 11:38:39 -0500
- Encoding: 47 TEXT
charghwI' writes:
>>If the ambiguity you are concerned about centers around whether the
action
>>occurs on Qo'noS or whether the worms are on Qo'noS, I don't see this as
>>ambiguous at all. Locatives apply to verbs only. There is no
justification
>>whatsoever for interpreting a locative to refer to a noun. Please point
out
>>some canon or rule I'm missing if I'm wrong on this.
ghunchu'wI' responds:
>bItlhobneSmo' jI'angqang.
>
>HolQeD Volume 4, Number 2; "Interview: Okrand on {-bogh} and more"
>On page 6; Marc Okrand says:
>I was reading this bit about "I see the child you hit on the ship,"
>and for whatever reason what popped into my head was Groucho
>Marx, that old Groucho Marx joke, you know, "I just shot an
>elephant in my pajamas... and how he got in my pajamas I'll never
>know." You can say that in Klingon, no problem; they'll get the
>joke. There's not many jokes you can get to translate into Klingon,
>but that one would work.
>
>It's not in the book, but it's straight from the source.
It is also not a complete context. I don't have that issue with me, so I
don't know if he actually translated the joke so we can see exactly what
this means. Meanwhile, since the article was entitled "{-bogh} and more",
it implies to me more than one verb in the sentence, hence the ambiguity is
sustained and the joke makes sense and all of it happens without the
locative ever referring to a noun instead of a verb:
nIvnavwIjDaq Qambogh *elephant* vIbach. chay nIvnavwIjDaq ghoSta'
*elephant* 'e' vISovbe'.
This can mean either I shot the elephant which was standing in my pajamas,
or that I, shooting in my pajamas, shot an elephant which was standing. The
locative must preceed the verb it modifies, but there is no guarantee there
won't be an interceding verb as well, so it is sometimes ambiguous which
verb is described by the locative.
If there is context here that you did not include, please help out. I don't
have my HolQeDs with me.
>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
charghwI'