tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 20 10:14:46 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: juHHomwIj pong
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 06:53:45 -0700
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>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'.
lupong. :)
>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.
Interesting.
>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.
Hmm. I can't justify it too well by what we know of Klingon, but I like
your reasoning. It's what the "shorthand" forms (e.g. ghIchlIj qanob) felt
like to me. The nature of the direct object was plain by its position and
presence, so the implied object in the prefix had to be the indirect
object... and that would really only make sense if they weren't the same
thing. I just couldn't put it into words.
>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.
*Grumble*... This doesn't fit what we know perfectly, does it. But I like
it. It sounds right to me... and that's not reason enough to support it.
But it's worth considering.
>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'.
lupong. :)
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMkLQ7MppGeTJXWZ9AQFuoAMAiMJLFOVjBBinVDtd/G2mrvyBQjQ7sPZa
YMYIPvU5NH1g3k5V85R/h1LLch3wCMUm/n5jqEdWwwSwUopaczJ8vwxlriB4Is7t
goP8m2+jzb0cQl5zNErUUbAYHbDdVQwt
=/drn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----