tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 18 06:25:35 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mumISmoH (TKW)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: mumISmoH (TKW)
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:25:22 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "David Wood" at Apr 18, 96 02:53:04 am
According to David Wood:
>
> p. 7, top: I don't understand the use of the VP for "you->he/she/it" {Da-} with
> the indefinite subject marker {-lu'}. The two don't seem to work together. For
> that matter, {Da-} seems to be the wrong prefix for the verb "threaten" in that
> proverb; {Du-} would seem to be a better choice.
>
> There will probably be many, many more that confuse me; this is just the first
> that I spotted.
>
> -- David Wood, Freelance Computer Consultant
> ("Freelance" is just a cheesy way of saying "Irregularly Employed")
Don't feel bad. I was quite confused by this for quite some
time, starting with the ST3/TKD example:
batlh DaQawlu'taH! You will be remembered with honor.
The culprit is the suffix {-lu}, which has the odd effect of
reversing the subject/object meaning of any prefix with an
object reference. In other words, {Da-x-lu'} becomes {Du-x}
with an indefinite subject, often translated as passive voice,
where in English we do pretty much the same thing.
You have been fooled = Someone/something has fooled you.
In the first sentence, "you" APPEARS to be the subject of the
verb "be fooled", which is actually the passive voice of the
transitive verb "to fool", of which "you" is the OBJECT, not
the subject.
My suspicion is that Okrand was applying his twisted humor in
focusing on the strangeness of the passive voice, coming up
with a similar, but not equal construction in Klingon, {-lu'}.
This reversal of subject/object in the prefix does not occur
when the prefix indicates no object, as in the TKD example
translating to "Is this seat taken?" which I think is something
like:
quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'?
So, [those who want to write a program to generate all legal
combinations of affixes take note] {-lu} can only be used with
prefixes which either indicate third person subject, no object,
or third person singular object with any subject. Of course,
third person singular subject with no object is null, so...
Also, for those who are checking for legal combinations of
affixes, {-'eghlu'} can only be used with the null prefix. This
is because {-'egh} can only be used with no object, while the
only legal no-object prefix for {-lu'} is third person
singular... Meanwhile, {-chuqlu'} should be an illegal
combination, since it requires a plural subject with no object
and this is not acceptable for {-lu'}.
voqbe''eghlu'chugh vaj HoSghajbe'lu'.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |
reH lugh charghwI' net Sov.