tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 04 15:32:03 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: several questions

The one comment I think needs adding is that in this post Marc
Ruelander was trying to step from a law'/puS construction to
generalities about normal Klingon grammar. You must remember
that the law'/puS construction has nothing to do with any other
kind of Klingon grammar. It is a special case.

The "death while standing" thing added to the law/puS
construction that it is okay to preceed the normal nouns with a
phrase offering a time-stamp or other descriptive phrase, like:

context1 noun1 descriptive-verb law' context2 noun2
descriptive-verb puS. Abbreviated:

c1 n1 Q law' c2 n2 Q puS.

This is a minor expansion of TKD's <n1 Q law' n2 Q puS>.

According to Mark E. Shoulson:
> 
> >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
> 


-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level