tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 26 17:47:33 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: subject-object combos
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: subject-object combos
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:47:29 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 17 Jul 1996 09:33:20 -0700 Dave Yeung
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >We have elected me as president.
SaDevmeH tuwIv. A leader is set apart from those he leads,
even as he charges with them into battle. If not, then he
is not leader.
> Consider some examples:
>
>
> We chose me as leader (my rendition of "we elected me president")
> DevwI'vaD jIH wIwIv (???)
ghobe'! This is ungrammatical and unnecessary. I can't
imagine anything that cannot be meaningfully recast to
avoid this kind of mess.
> I might use this in a speech after an election victory. Changing to
> third person makes no sense. I suppose one might say {DevwI'vaD tuwIv}
> "You (pl) chose as leader" but it's just not as personal.
You don't choose for the benefit of the leader. You choose
in order that one leads you.
> Did you (all) see you?
> SoH bolegh'a'? (???)
In order to have a meaningful second person, you need to be
addressing the person or persons. You are shifting
amidstream those you are addressing. That is the reason
these prefixes don't exist. Choose your audience and stick
to it throughout the sentence, or split your idea into two
sentences so you can differentiate which audience you are
addressing for each part of your thought!
> I might use the above if I were a judge, and I was questioning a bunch of
> witnesses, and I wanted to ask if anyone saw a particular suspect. Thus,
> the question is directed at BOTH the individual AND the group.
So, you are asking the suspect if he saw himself? If so,
his state of seeing is different from that of the others
you are asking. And if not, then his state of being is
different from the others you are asking. Either way, the
individual should be third person in the sentence
addressing the group.
> I might
> say to the person {nIlegh'a'?} "Did they see you?" and to the group
> {bolegh'a'?} "Did you see him/her?" but I wanted a quicker more efficient
> way to say it. (If I were a Klingon judge who was pissed off... :) )
The simple way is to avoid addressing the suspect. Just ask
the group if they saw him. Do you really CARE what the
suspect has to say? What kind of Klingon judge ARE you,
ANYway?
> I took us to the store.
> "mechDaq" maH vItlhej (???)
*mechDaq* maghoS. jIDev.
> Let's say I'm a father and I came home with my kids, and my wife asks me,
> "So, where were you (all)?" I might answer {"mechDaq" chaH vItlhej} "I
> took them to the store", but since the question is directed at "you
> (all)", I think that I would answer with "we, us", IF that is possible.
*mechDaq* maghoS.
> Do you represent you (all)?
> tlhIH Da'oS'a'? (???)
Who are you addressing? If you are addressing the
representative, then those she/he represents are third
person. If you are addressing the crowd, then the
representative is third person.
> I might say this if I meet a new species, and one steps forward to talk
> to me. Or I might say, {DevwI' SoH'a'} "Are you the leader?" Well, I
> can't think of a better example at the moment.
qay'be'.
> So my question remains: It is POSSIBLE to express {we-me}, {you(pl)-you},
> {I-us}, {you-you(pl)} in Klingon?
ghobe'.
> dave yeung
charghwI'