tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 15 19:30:18 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {n/ng-a-'/gh/H}
On Mon, 15 May 1995, William H. Martin wrote:
> Welcome back!
jIDachtaHvIS Qu'meywIj vIta'mo' qatlho'.
> According to R.B Franklin:
> > A couple of other items I would like to add to the list are:
> >
> > When a verb is used adjectivally, it can take the suffix {-qu'}. Is
> > is legal to add {-be'} or {-Ha'} to verbs when they are used
> > adjectivally?
> > E.g. {*qama' ralbe'} (a non-violent prisoner) or {*jagh quvHa'} (a
> > dishonored enemy)
>
> We know that {-be'} is allowed because of the canon usage in CK:
>
> wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'
It is because of this very example, which seems to be an exception to
rule given in Sec. 4.4, that I would like so see further
clarification. I would really like to see Okrand expand on Sec. 4.4, I
think that using {-be'}, if not {-Ha'}, on adjectival verbs would be a
very useful tool.
> > What verb suffixes, if any, besides {-Ha'} and the Type 7 aspect suffixes,
> > are permitted with {-ghach}?
>
> The interview in HolQeD with Okrand on this topic covers most
> of this. I don't have those with me just now, so I can't cite
> the issue (though I feel certain someone here will).
In Okrand's interview in HolQeD 3.3, he only gives us a few examples of
using {-ghach} with Type 7 aspect suffixes. He indicates that simply
using {-moH} has the same odd feel to it as using a naked verb stem.
This is why I would like to see a more detailed explaination of which
verb suffixes can be used with {-ghach}, and which suffixes would result
in "a highly marked form."
> > We can put {'e'} on the head noun of a relative clause, but can we put
> > other Type 5 syntactic markers on the head noun? I.e. is it legal to say
> > something like:
> > *vengDaq HIvpu'bogh jagh (in the city which the enemy has attacked)
> This is a good question that Okrand would help us to address. I
> personally hope that this does NOT prove to be acceptable,
> since the expansion into potential meaning it offers is more
> than offset by the likely confusion it would create.
> Essentially, we are asking to make a Type 5 suffix to carry two
> meanings. If it can do this some of the time, it will become
> confusing as to which times it is supposed to do this and which
> times it is not. Expanding your example:
>
> vengDaq HIvpu'bogh jagh vIlu'.
>
> Which does this mean? :
>
> "In the city, I found the enemy who had attacked."
> "I found the city in which the enemy had attacked."
Although this type of constuction may create sentences with ambiguous
meanings, we do know that Klingon can create ambiguous sentences whose
meaning must be determined by context. E.g. {qaleghpu' je} (Sec. 5.3.).
Dispite any resulting ambiguity, canon does have one example of
a Type 5 noun suffix on the head noun of a relative clause:
loS...qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He
ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH. (DS9 trading card #99 (1993 series))
But I'm not inclined to make sweeping generalizations based upon one
sentence. That is why I would like some sort of guidelines from Okrand.
> Unfortunately, Okrand seems to answer about one question per
> year.
Do'Ha'qu'. <sigh>
> > yoDtargh
> charghwI'
yoDtargh