tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 15 16:37:54 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: KLBC: Happy New Year!



January 14, 1997 11:46 PM EST, jatlh Voragh:

> |> If you must admit uncertainty, though, it's simplest to just put -law' on
> |> the verb: DaHjaj javvatlh jabbI'ID vIghajlaw'!
> |
> |This may mean that you're unsure as to whether you *have* 600 messages, not 

> |how many you have.  
> 
> As opposed to what? Either I have 600 messages or none at all?
> 
> To quote TKD 4.2.6 (p.60), emphasis added:
> 
> <<This suffix expresses *any* uncertainty on the speaker's part and may
> even be thought of as meaning "I think" or "I suspect". Thus the previous
> two slentences could be translated "I think it's empty" [chImlaw'], "I
> suspect that he/she is controlling us" [nuSeHlaw'].>>

Ah, but here's the catch.  What if I wanted to say "I think two officers are 
controlling us"?  We're not questioning how many officers are controlling us 
(perhaps we know two officers, and we suddenly get the idea that they are 
controlling our minds, but we have no proof).  We're stating our uncertainty 
that "controlling" is happening.

nuSeHlaw' cha' yaS.

This doesn't mean "officers are controlling us, but we don't know exactly how 
many."

> If I had said, for example, DaHjaj javvatlh jabbI'ID vIghajbej, then I
> would be claiming I had *exactly* 600 (perhaps I counted them).

No, it means you definitely have 600 transmissions.  Say my mailer went down, 
and I'm not sure if it's functional yet.  I know I'm going to download 600 
messages, but I'm not sure if I have them yet.  {javvatlh jabbI'ID 
vIghajlaw'}.  However, I wouldn't automatically rule out the possibility that 
you're talking about the number of messages being in question.  I'd suggest 
that if the number of messages is in question, you might say {javvatlh 
jabbI'ID'e' vIghajlaw'}.  This is not a rule, just a suggestion.  It's telling 
you that the topic of the sentence is {javvatlh jabbI'ID}, and you can also 
see the {-law'} there.

> Remember
> the explanation in Power Klingon about -bej being used "when there is no
> doubt in your mind as to the accuracy of the statement".

Yes, but "accuracy" doesn't necessarily mean numerical correctness (hee hee!). 
 It also means that what you said, in this case about having something, is 
absolutely correct.

nuH vIghajbej.
I definitely have a weapon.

> Of course if for some reason I wanted to stress that this was a considered
> estimate, I'd say so and use {noH}:  DaHjaj javvatlh jabbI'ID vIHevpu' 'e'
> vInoH!

This I like.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97043.1


Back to archive top level