tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 04 10:09:10 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: several questions
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: several questions
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 13:09:07 -0500
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from MarcRuehlaender on Wed, 3 Jan 1996 02:08:26 -0800)
>Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 02:08:26 -0800
>From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
>I recently received a very valuable package, containing
>the back issues of HolQeD and the tapes. Now I have some
>questions, I'd like to have answered.
>In HolQeD 2:2, our friendly grammarian, Cpt. Krankor,
>considers the phrase
>QamtaHvIS Hegh QaQ law' tortaHvIS yIn QaQ puS
>Death while standing is better than life while kneeling.
>In order to avoid sentences in the A or B slot, he
>analyses Hegh and yIn as nouns. However, usually
>QamtaHvIS Hegh would mean "while death is standing",
>or doesn't it? So this use of -taHvIS to form attributive
>phrases is new to me. To see if I got it right, then,
>are the following correct?
Not necessarily. If "Hegh" is a noun, it need not be the subject of
"QamtaHvIS." "QamtaHvIS" might have an implied subject (he/she/it/they),
and "Hegh" is the noun in the law'/puS construction. Thus, "while
he/she/it/they stands, death is better than life while he/she/it/they
kneels." True, the implied subject is probably "one" and thus it should be
"Qamlu'taHvIS" for better expression.
>QaQ QamtaHvIS Hegh. qab tortaHvIS yIn
>Death while (one is) standing is good.
>Life while (one is) kneeling is bad.
I don't know that we can use "-taHvIS" phrases to modify a noun (I know we
can use -meH phrases that way). The case above isn't quite the same, since
we can consider each half of the law'/puS construction to be a full
sentence (albeit an anomolous one). I would say that you'd probably still
be better off saying "QamtaHvIS QaQ Hegh" or better "Qamlu'taHvIS QaQ
Hegh." Again, the subject of "QamtaHvIS" is either indefinite (if you use
-lu') or else implied.
>Do'Ha' yInpu'pa' Hegh.
>Death before one has completed living is unfortunate.
>yonmoH yInta'DI' Hegh.
>Death as soon as one has accomplished living is satisfying.
See above. I don't feel comfortable interposing subordinate clauses in the
middle of the main clause. They can go before it or after it, but in the
middle seems odd (-meH clauses we know can modify nouns, and also can only
come before clauses they modify).
>Next question: on CK I hear
>Ha'DIbaHmey meQ Sop 'e' tIv tera'nganpu'
>Terrans like to eat burnt animals.
>If this is correct, then meQ "to burn" can also
>be used as meQ "be burnt"?
Apparently, yes.
>And could someone hint me to the missing words in
>??? De'vetlh that is classified information
>??? Sop, tera'ngan Bon Appetit, Terran
>I can't make anything out of what I hear...
>(at this place I need to say, I'm not very happy
>with Okrand's pronounciation, especially of r,gh,rgh)
"pegh De'vetlh", from which we learn that "pegh" means, in addition to
"secret (n)" and "keep something secret (v)", also "be secret (v)."
As to "??? Sop", I too wonder. Nearest I can guess is "peSop", making it a
command ("Eat!")... but then why in the plural?
>Last question (for now): in HolQeD 3:2 our friendly
>grammarian, Cpt. Krankor, examines the usage of "it"
>in English and how this carries over to tlhIngan Hol.
>He is especially considering a usage, which is described as
> the grammatical subject of a clause of which the
> actual subject is another clause or phrase following
>this sure sounds like the dreaded "sentence-as-subject"
>to me. He concludes that Klingon may have this usage but
>that what is the subject in English becomes the object of
>the Klingon phrase, e.g.
>jaH neH ghaH 'e' teH
>HE wants to go. (something) is true that.
>It is true that he wants to go.
>I think this is weird. My personal opinion is, one would
>have to say something like
>jaH neH ghaH. teH mu'tleghvam.
>As those kind of constructions would occur quite often,
>and what else could be the subject of the second sentence
>other than something similar to mu'tlhghvam, one might
>suggest it can be elided (as our friendly grammarian,
>Cpt. Krankor, argues for peD = peD muD in the same article).
>Thus I'd say:
>jaH neH ghaH. teH.
I think I'm in agreement with you for the most part.
~mark