tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 19 15:16:16 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: Quotes

jatlh Holtej:

>  I don't think we have any evidence that shows that we *can*, but there's 
>  also no rule that says we *can't*.  But I tend to avoid this construction. 
>   It's like the difference between "my killer" and "the me-killer".
>  
>  	muHoHwI'	"me-killer"
>  	HoHwI'wI'	"my killer"
>  
>  The first one emphasizes the individual, the second the action.  Here's 
>  another example.  We go to the opera, and I ask you what you though of the 
>  tenor.  Would you say "I liked him singing" or "I liked his singing"?  The 
>  first is like using a prefix on the verb, and the second like using the 
>  normal possessive constructions.  (Though the gerund examples are harder 
>  to 
>  show what I mean clearly in Klingon).  We're not talking about the 
>  individual, we're talking about the action.
>  
>  So, I've always disliked prefixes on /-wI'/'d verbs.

You mean, because this doesn't work well in English, it shouldn't work in 
Klingon either?  Ummm . . .

I'm willing to go along with the suggestion that {-wI'} is not allowed, but 
until it is proven one way or the other, I won't be using it too much.  Still, 
I don't believe this argument works.  The word {muHoHwI'} makes perfect 
logical sense, whether or not it is allowed grammatically.

Rather, I'd take this grammatical approach: the prefix {mu-} indicates 
third-person subject.  What's the subject of this verb?  Aha!  There isn't 
one.  In fact, it's not even a verb anymore!  It doesn't look like you can add 
{-wI'} to verbs which are already acting out parts in sentences, you can only 
use the "gerund" form (well, Klingon doesn't really *have* one, but . . .).

SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96887.0

P.S. Oh, I've just read ~mark's message saying (more or less, probably more) 
the same thing.  Well, I'll send this one anyway.

Back to archive top level