tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 29 01:48:48 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-vaD on pronoun; etc
- From: "A.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
- Subject: -vaD on pronoun; etc
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 09:42:35 GMT
- Priority: normal
[email protected] wrote (Subject: -vaD vs. -Daq on pronouns):-
> I am attempting to translate into Klingon:
> "I have to put a splint on her broken arm.".
> {DeSDaj Hom ghorlu'bogh 'oHvaD vIHgho'naQ vIlannIS}
---- * DeSDaj ----
- N:arm_anat NS4:his
---- Hom ----
- N:bone
---- ghorlu'bogh ----
- V:break VS5:indef_subject VS9:which_rel
---- 'oHvaD ----
- P:it NS5:[for|indir_obj]
---- vIHgho'naQ ----
- V:move_itr* V:step_on V:be_[full|whole|entire]*
- V:move_itr* V:step_on N:[cane|staff]*
== Erh?? A better compound would be: {vIHbotnaQ} = "move-prevent stick"?
---- vIlannIS ----
- PP:I/[he|it|them] V:place VS2:need
> 'oHvaD feels good (TKD Sec 6.8, p180), but I have pondered the question of
> the allowability of affixing -Daq to Nominative Pronouns, resulting in
> 'oHDaq for *on it*
Both seem reasonable, as individual words.
> In another member's message I read of the difficulty with -bogh. At this
> point, my feelings tell me to try using constructions such as {puq
> qIppu'bogh yaSvaD Hergh vInob} for *I give the medicine to the **officer**
> who hit the child* wherein the officer is deduced by feeling to be the
> recipient
{puq qIppu' yaSvaD} = "he hit the child on behalf of the officer", thus {puq
qIppu'bogh yaSvaD} = "he who hit the child on behalf of the officer" or "the
child who he hit on behalf of the officer" or perhaps "the officer who he hit
the child on behalf of", according to which noun has the {'e'}. What we need
is {(puq qIppu'bogh yaS'e')-vaD Hergh vInob}, and the nearest that we can get
to that using words only and no algebra symbols is {puq qIppu'bogh yaS'e'
'e'vaD Hergh vInob} or similar.
> and using {puq'e' qIppu'bogh yaSvaD Hergh vInob} for "I give the medicine to
> the child (now emphasized by -'e') whom the officer hit".
Try {puq'e' qIppu'bogh yaS' 'e'vaD Hergh vInob}.
> Obviously wrong must be yaS'e'vaD because each -'e' and vaD is a Type 4
> suffix; and, only one suffix of one type may be attached to one noun :)
Then, if {puqvaD yuch nob yaS} = "the officer gave chocolate to the child"
(about time too after all that uncalled-for violence :-( :-( ), and {puqvaD
vIjatlh} = "I spoke to the child", what is the correct form for **{puqvaD'e'
yuch nob yaS 'e'vaD vIjatlh} = "I spoke to the child who the officer gave
chocolate to"? (Omitting the {-'e'} would create ambiguity.) Or do we have to
bend the rule about prefixes and accept what Marc Okrand says somewhere, that
Klingons sometimes break the rules of their grammar? Likewise **{DujDaq
jatlhlaHlu'} = "in the ship, one can speak."? Or **{vIghitlhchu'bejpu'} = "I
obviously wrote perfectly."?