tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 20 06:50:18 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
juHHomwIj pong
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: juHHomwIj pong
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:49:49 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
juHHomwIjvaD *reHpa* vIpong. jIreHmeH pa' 'oH, ej reH pa' 'oH
tIqwIj'e'.
On the use of the verb {pong}, given the new canon, I once again
suggest my earlier guess at the verb's use should be valid. I
initially guessed it would be okay to say:
charghwI' mupong tlhInganpu'.
The new canon suggests it would be:
jIHvaD charghwI' pong tlhInganpu'.
Meanwhile, we have canon suggesting that the following two
sentences are equivalent:
jIHvaD taj yInob.
taj HInob.
My personal spin on this sort of thing is that the second
example only works if the indirect object and the direct object
are not of the same person.
A key feature of the Klingon language is its minimal quantity of
redundency. That's why plural suffixes are not necessary for
words known to be plural, as in {loS yIH vIHoH.} While {loS
yIHmey vIHoH,} is not incorrect, it is also not necessary.
If you have one grammatical piece of evidence indicating that a
noun is plural, you don't need a plural suffix. Similarly, if
the prefix indicates a different person for the object than the
noun in the posion of the direct object, all examples so far
make the prefix-related object to be indirect.
That gives us two different ways to indicate indirect object.
One is the explicit rule in TKD appendix that we can use {-vaD}
on the indirect object, making it one of those nouns that goes
before the direct object. The other way to indicate indirect
object, for which TKD offers no rule, but for which we do have
canon {ghIchwIj Dabochchugh vaj ghIchlIj qanob,} is by this
disagreement between the explicit direct object and the person
of the object indicated by the prefix.
So, if in our one canon use of the verb {pong}, the ditransitive
English verb becomes a Klingon verb with the direct object being
the name and the indirect object being the entity named, I argue
that since the direct object will always be third person (the
name given), so long as the indirect object is NOT third person,
you should be able to use the verb {pong} according to my
original guess:
charghwI' mupong tlhInganpu'.
I could also say:
charghwI' vIponglu'.
(Heh, heh.) maQoch 'e' vIpIH.
Meanwhile, I don't, since Klingons are the only ones who call me
charghwI'.
In our canon example, note that the entity named was third
person, so Okrand could not use the grammar I suggest, and given
that the entity named is the indirect object, I, too, would have
suggested:
'oHvaD juHqo' pong tlhInganpu'.
pItlh.
charghwI'