tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 03 09:13:07 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIlIH(')egh, etc.
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 07:53:34 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>jej'QIbvaD* ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
> >>>>
>>"jej'QIb" jIH.
><jej'QIb> 'oH nuq?
>A pronoun being used to mean "to be" does not mean "is the same as".
>It can mean either "is a member of a group" or "is in a location".
>You have said "I am *a* {jej'QIb}", not "I am {jej'QIb}."
> <<<<
>jIQoch. While the examples Okrand gives in TKD 6.3 all fit into those two
>categories, to my mind the way jej'QIb is using the construction fits both
>the letter and the sense of the section. Imagine the following exchange:
jIQochbe'. Er... Mark vIQochbe', ghunchu'wI' vIQoch.
I think it's pretty clear that pronouns-as-nouns are fairly normal copulae,
capable of indicating that X=Y. We have "SoH 'Iv" as canon for "who are
you"; "who" and "you" are plainly in appostion here, and whichever one is
acting as the verb here it's behaving just as Mark claims. "jIH" *does*
mean "I am the same as" when used as a verb: "tlhIngan jIH" is "I
am-the-same-as a Klingon". Where did you see mention of membership in a
group there? "tlhIngan" here means "a Klingon" (which Klingon? Well, the
one which I am). It could also mean "I am the Klingon" (say, the one whom
you saw your lady with last night), depending on the context.
I see *no* support for forbidding "jejQIb jIH" as an introduction. I find
it natural and simple, and at least as easy as "jejQIb 'oH pongwIj'e'".
> (mangvaD) bu': HoDlI' vay'?
You mean "'Iv" instead of "vay'" here?
> (bu' 'o'Daq**) HoD: HoDDaj jIH. nuqneH?
>"HoDDaj" is a noun that refers to only one "thing" in the universe: the
>soldier's captain. The captain's statement says, "I am [that thing]": "I am
>his captain."
You betcha.
>* The Klingon glottal stop (written as apostrophe) can't come between j
>and Q in Klingon words, and would barely be perceptible (if at all) there.
>I would suggest that jej'QIb drop that letter from the name. (Until he or
>she does, though, pong'e' lo'bogh 'oHbej pongDaj'e'.)
jIQochbe'chu'
>** "bu' 'o'" is the way I say "behind the sergeant". TKD gives us no
>words for "area in front of" and "area behind", but we do have the naval
>terms "'et" 'fore' and "'o'" 'aft', meaning the front and rear regions of a
>ship. I have pressed these words into more general service -- or maybe
>they ARE general, and are just translated with these naval words in
>English because that's how Okrand first happened to elicit them from
>Maltz. When plowing through a crowded hallway I am apt to growl
>"'etwIjvo'!", and it doesn't seem to matter whether people understand the
>language or not; they get out of the way. [But in light of recent
>revelations about the use of area-nouns with pronouns, perhaps "jIH
>'etvo'" would be more correct.]
I've long used "'o'" and "'et" for front and back of things, for lack of a
better idea. But I see >no< reason for "*jIH 'etvo'." What developments
have you seen that nouns of location don't become possessives the usual
way? I didn't see any. Did I miss something? I think "'etwIjvo'" sounds
fine. Or maybe HewIjvo'.
(hmm... remembering a comment once from someone looking at a particular
part of someone else and saying "'o' 'IH..." (it's a sentence fragment, a
bare noun-phrase, don't hassle me on word-order). No, I'm not saying who
or when or with regard to what.
~mark