tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 10 20:14:33 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: qaSovlu' jIneH & KLBC



macheq writes:
>> >My second name, Stanislaw <SIta'nISlav> I TRANSLATE (yes! many
>> >of the Slavic first names do translate pretty well) as noychoHlu'wI'.
>
>> Hmm, a stative verb with the suffix {-lu'} is itself pretty strange,
>> but to then add {-wI'}?  I can't follow it...
>
>I am not sure if I understand well your idea of "a stative verb".
>(TKD doesn't speak of such distinction, but I think you use it
>rather intuitevly).

It's a linguists' term.  TKD doesn't use the term itself, but in the
description of the {law'/puS} "comparative" construction in section
6.6, it refers to "...[A] verb expressing a quality or condition...",
which is what we mean by "stative".  Things like {Quch} "be happy" or
{Hab} "be smooth" are certainly stative; the clue here is that their
definition is "be [something]", rather than "do" something.  A few
verbs aren't so clear-cut: {Qong} "sleep", for instance.  It could as
easily have been translated "be asleep"; I haven't found *any* cases
where the meaning is different.

>Well, if I understand well, <-choH> means "change",
>"become", and that's not stative any more.

The root meaning is still stative, though.

>TKD 4.2.5. "Verbs with <-lu'>  are often translated into the Eglish passive
>voice".  I have tried to make the inverse: translate the passive voice
>into Klingon. But you are right that the idea of "passiveness" is
>already implied by the verb <noy> itself.

{-lu'} is most often used when the verb has an object, and it's that sort
of usage that can be translated with passive voice.  If there's no object,
there's nothing to "passively" receive the action of the verb!

There are canon examples of the indefinite subject with an intransitive
verb.  For example, in the Appendix we see {quSDaq ba'lu''a'?}  It might
be possible to contrive a passive-voice translation (something like the
pseudogrammatical "Is the chair being sat in?"), but the impersonal "one"
works better: "Does one sit in the chair?"

>Maybe you are right I was unnecessarily stuch with my discovery of
><-lu'> and abused it (all the examples below, when re-thougt by
>me show that sometimes <-lu'> is more then superfluous or
>even wrong.

I have to say that if you're using the verb suffix {-wI'}, {-lu'} is most
likely just plain wrong.  {-wI'} creates a noun that refers to the subject
of the verb it is connected to, but {-lu'} removes that subject before it
can be referred to.

>The meaning of my name is "The one who will become full of glory (famous)".
>[A bit pretentious, hein?]

qay'be'.  Names are merely labels; they don't *have* to be taken literally.
I think {noychoHwI'} "one who becomes famous" works.  But why does it have
to be a noun?  {noychoH} sounds good too.  (I chose my Klingon name without
giving it enough thought.  Maybe I'll change it someday.)

>> We don't really know *what* {toQ} means...
>O.K. But even then I have chosen it to mean "bird" if this one of
>the possibilities.

Well, we aren't sure of *any* of the possibilities I mentioned.  But it's
(a part of) your name, and you can do as you please with it.

>> Klingon seems to be the only Star Trek "language" with a definitive
>> grammar.
>I feel disappointed. I thought Vulcan & Ferengi would be at least similarly
>elaborated, maybe only less popular.

Nope.  tlhIngan Hol is unique in that it was specifically commissioned to
sound both "alien" and consistent.  Its creator turned it into a complete
language with a decidedly unusual grammar, and gave it enough power to be
useful; our ability actually to communicate using it is what makes it the
only "popular" Star Trek language.  The snippets of Vulcan are just a few
words here and there, plus a small amount of dialogue that was chosen for
its ability to match the mouth movements of actors speaking English.  And
I don't know that anyone has ever tried to collect the samples of Ferengi
speech that have been presented.

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




Back to archive top level