tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 14 09:21:50 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chay'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:37:01 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>
>In a message dated 97-01-13 18:58:31 EST, Sustel writes:
>
><< Here's another problem for you: although I don't think this is correct
>either,
> I see it more likely to be {'ar beQ ghew} than {chay' beQ ghew} for "How
>flat
> is the bug?" At least {'ar} is asking for a degree of something ("how
>much")?
> In Klingon, {chay' beQ ghew} is a perfectly grammatical question, whose
> answer might be {vIgho'}.
> >>
>
>SuStel, Please refer to TKD pp 69-70 Section 6.4. You obviously need to read
>very carefully how {'ar} asks the measure of Nouns. {chay'}, {qatlh}, and
>{ghorgh} ask something about the action, i.e., the Verb. {nuq} and {'Iv} fit
>into Object or Subject slots as Nouns. {nuqDaq} fits into the Adverb slot.
This is certainly true. I would not recommend anyone use "'ar" as SuStel
has, absent a ruling from Okrand. However, using "chay'" for this meaning,
while grammatical, is equally unattested semantically. Although an
adverbial usage of 'ar is not grammatical, I would be as likely to expect
it to be confirmed as correct (or some form of 'ar in this way) for "how X
is it?" as I would to be to expect "chay'" for this meaning.
>A prevalent pattern in Earth languages,
>from the several I have delved into, nowhere near all that exist, is that the
>word for "how" does a verb's action occur also asks "how" a stative verbs
>degree is measured.
But not all (Hebrew, for example), and moreover the fact that these things
exist in Terran languages is not an indication that it should in Klingon.
Klingon is deliberately modeled to *break* the rules sometimes, and
sometimes to break them in unexpected ways. It is certainly worthwhile to
look at what other languages do for comparison or for ideas, but those
don't constitute proofs.
>Finally, I resent your having been the first to reply. BG does not equate to
>authority, particularly in the case of a post not containing KLBC and
>requesting discussion from the listserv members at large. jIHvaD bIjangqa'pa'
>maja'chuq ghomvam jIH je 'e' vIchup
I don't understand this. If you had said that you didn't like that he
forbade someone else from replying first, that would be one thing. There
are certainly grey areas in determining when the BG's right of first
response applies. But you can't blame him for answering! What is he to
do? Ask permission before he responds to mail? Will you co-ordinate and
schedule the mailing activities of the list, and tell us when we can and
cannot answer? He just happened to see it before other people did,
happened to be at his computer at the right moment, happened to be
connected by fast mailers, happened to be ready with a response before
other people got around to it. If you DON'T want to hear from him, I
suppose you can ask him not to respond, but you didn't.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMtvApMppGeTJXWZ9AQGofwL/bBPrdGSssTk7o2/iSPVqQGAMrYXtOTfP
KgtfV3Oa1ndxGHZB67plH+s56gzf4iDf3ZTLKD6OtomA4JWOrucqBhhWCjTauOwS
6UUpifEx61aZx9V4LP5eewe+q+U7wYPg
=iLX2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----