tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 27 20:54:48 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SuSvaj, jIHlut chovwI''a'!!!!
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SuSvaj, jIHlut chovwI''a'!!!!
- Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 00:46:04 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, December 26, 1997 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: SuSvaj, jIHlut chovwI''a'!!!!
>On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 15:04:58 -0800 (PST) SuSvaj
>>*Daredevil*pu' chaHmo', *Eiffel tower*vo'
>> *bunji-jump* neH chaH.
>
>Okay, this is not a correction. It is a question. Should this be
>{luneH chaH}?. I'm not sure at all. If this use of {neH} is
>supposed to be a form of Sentence As Object, then the object is
>singular and it probably should be {luneH chaH}. Meanwhile, if
>{neH} is evolving towards being a suffix, it would probably be
>just {neH chaH} as stated here.
>
>What do others think?
I know you like the evolving-towards-a-suffix-idea, but there really is no
evidence of that in anything we have. I see no reason to create other
grammar out of it.
In describing the grammar of {neH} in TKD 6.2.5, Okrand says, "When the verb
of the second sentence is {neH} 'want,' neither {'e'} nor {net} is used, but
the construction is otherwise identical to that just described [i.e.
Sentences As Objects]."
This means that using {neH} IS an example of a Sentence As Object
construction, and is not some alternate form (like verbs of saying, where
the construction is NOT identical to SAO). Thus, the {lu-} prefix is
required. Some Klingons may drop it because {lu-} is occasionally dropped,
but this would seem to be an unrelated phenomenon, and it is still
considered to be "wrong," anyway.
As for the special form of the {neH} construction, I see two possibilities:
the {'e'} or {net} is simply dropped for no known reason and that's the end
of it, or the actual grouping of words of the first sentence themselves
represent the object of {neH}, as opposed to some pronoun doing it for them.
(I once suggested this theory, and you disliked it a lot. It still explains
without any twists why Klaa says {reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH} and not {DIvI'
Duj vISuv reH vIneH} which, if we were to go by all of the rules and
examples --1-- we've been given besides this one, would have to be the one
we came up with.)
Whether {neH} is in the process of becoming a suffix or not, it's not there
*yet*, and the grammar says {lu-} is required.
SuStel
Stardate 97988.3