tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 03 18:16:04 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: jIlIH(')egh, etc.

I wrote:
>A pronoun being used to mean "to be" does not mean "is the same as".

Marks Mandel and Shoulson wrote:
>jIQoch.

I'll probably yield eventually, but I'll explain my position first.
Every example I found in TKD about using a pronoun to mean "to be" was
translated as "to be *a* [something]" or "to be *in/at* [somewhere]".
Meanwhile, there is the verb {rap} "be the same" -- if {'oH} can be
interpreted as "it is the same as" then why would {rap} exist?  I have
usually tried to be very limited in my interpretation of TKD's examples,
and none of the "to be" examples imply that {valQIS jIH} is valid.

~mark writes:
>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.

I didn't find {SoH 'Iv} in TKD; where does it come from?  It does rather
clearly oppose my position.  I might try to weasel out with a complaint
about {'Iv} being a question word and not a "regular" pronoun, but that
doesn't seem worth the effort.  Still, I don't think this implies that
a name can be used as the object of a pronoun used as a verb.

>  "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?

That's the meaning I have inferred from the "I am a [something]" pattern.

>"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 don't think context would let me read {tlhIngan jIH} as "I am the Klingon".
I'd be more comfortable with {tlhInganvetlh jIH} "I am that Klingon" -- which
is another example like {HoDDaj jIH} where the object is a unique entity, and
my argument gets very weak trying to deal with these.

>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'".

I, of course, cannot forbid anything.  However, I'd like to keep the "to be"
meanings of pronouns as strictly limited as possible -- it's one of the ways
that Klingon differs markedly from English.  I have exactly the same concern
with {jejQIb 'oH pongwIj'e'} as I have with {jejQIb jIH} -- it expands what
{jIH} and {'oH} can mean beyond the examples given in TKD.  I think it would
be better as {pongwIj 'oH jejQIb'e'}, but again it's hard to claim that my
interpretation of "member of a group" applies to a unique item.

 -- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level