tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 13 06:45:21 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC: serving a ship
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: KLBC: serving a ship
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:44:57 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
I agree entirely with your argument, but have one style point
which I think is worth mentioning.
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:11:17 -0800 Qov <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> jIQochbe' jay'. Use -lI' or -ta' because it is the directed completion (or
> intention to complete) the goal that is important, not simply because such a
> goal exists. jIDoy' Hut romuluSngan vIHoHpu'mo'. (I was tired because I
> had /I am tired because I have /I will be tired because I will have killed
> nine Romulans.) I don't kill that many Romulans by accident, but the goal
> of killing the Romulans wasn't the point I wanted to make. On the other
> hand: vInaDlu' Hut romuluSngan vIHoHta'mo'. (I was/am being/will be
> commended because I had killed/have killed/will have killed nine Romulans.)
> Same Romulans (I was tired after the first batch: didn't kill nine *more*)
> but this time the accomplisment is what I want to emphasize.
Because we know that the noun suffix {-mo'} should preceed the
main verb (like most Type 5 noun suffixes), and because we are
told that the verb suffix is identical to the noun suffix and
has the same meaning, I feel drawn toward using it before the
main verb. It is the character of a Klingon sentence to have the
environment for the action set before the action itself. That's
why locatives, time stamps and adverbials go first. Stating the
cause of the action seems very much in character with this. I
would far prefer:
Hut romuluSngan vIHoHpu'mo' jIDoy'.
Hut romuluSngan vIHoHta'mo' vInaDlu'.
I cannot say that your word order is wrong and I have not
achieved cataloging canon sufficiently well yet to back up my
interpretation, but I will say that I am caused to wince when I
hear what feels like an English style of getting the action out
of the way first and then explaining the setting for it. It
feels weak and apologetic compared to what feels like a more
true Klingon style where the sentence is like a joke where the
main action is the punch line. Everything else is the setup. It
spoils the joke to hear the punch line too soon.
If you tell me your reason, I want to hear what action that
reason drives one to do. The explanation whets my appetite for
the action. If I hear what one has done, I have less interest in
listening to the reason. The sentence feels long and padded.
Okrand does explicitly violate this construction involving
phrases around {-taHvIS} and such, so I know my stylistic
preference is somewhat extreme. This is not an explicit law of
the langauge. I'm just offering my feeling about this.
> Note that -ta'/-pu' can be translated in future tense. Aspect is not tense.
> yIHar 'ej Sov yIlo'. pItlh.
bIqarba'.
> ---
> Qov [email protected] tlhIngan Hol ghojwI'
charghwI'