tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 15 19:19:22 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: jItlhIj



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 14:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>
>: >From: Voragh
>: >: >From: [email protected]
>: >: >DIloraQ ghunchu'wI' jevaD jIchID 'ej jItlhIj
>: >: 
>: >: *ugh* jIpar.  {*Dloraq*vaD *ghunchu'wI'vaD je jIchID} yIja'.
>: >: "conjunction"Daq DIp moHaq yIlanQo'.  *Voragh*, vay' ja'pu''a' *Okrand*?
>: >: 
>: >: ~mark
>: >
>: >*ugh* indeed. AFAIK, noun suffixes can only be used on nouns and pronouns,
>: >which are a subset of nouns. {je} is called a conjunction by Okrand, not a
>: >noun. Klingon grammarians probably just class it among the {chuvmey}. (I'll
>: >have to check TKD when I get home.) I searched the entire corpus, in fact,
>: >and could find no instance of ANY conjunction taking any suffix at all. It
>: >was an interesting idea, though.
>: 
>: Well, they can also go on adjectival verbs [...]
>
>But adjectival verbs are used with nouns, producing noun phrases--yet
>another subset of nouns. 
>You can say:
>   SuvwI'vaD nISwI' vInob.       "I gave my disruptor to the warrior.
>or
>   ghaHvaD nISwI' vInob.         "I gave my disruptor to him/her.
>or
>   SuvwI' SuDvaD nISwI' vInob.   "I gave my disruptor to the green warrior."
>using an adjectival verb. This is really (SuvwI' SuD)vaD nISwI' vInob -- a
>noun phrase.

Yes.  The argument for "*jevaD", though, would be that "HoD 'utlh je" forms
a single noun phrase and therefore -vaD, as a postposition, should go at
the end of that compound noun phrase, even as it goes at the end of the
noun phrase "HoD SuD".  I don't believe this interpretation, nor does
really anyone (except peHruS, and that only briefly).  Even viewing -vaD as
a postposition rather than a suffix, it's still quite reasonable to have
this situation, even as in English we can say "to the officer and to the
captain" instead of "to the officer and the captain," and there are
languages where this phrasing is mandatory.  Apparently Klingon is one of
them.

>Adjectival verbs used without nouns are predicates. 

Yes, but those are unrelated to what I was talking about.  When I say
"adjectival verbs," generally I mean verbs used as adjectives after nouns
to make noun phrases.  When used as predicates, I don't generally call them
"adjectival."  Maybe "stative," but there's still as verbal as verbal can
be, not adjectives to me.

>BTW Grammarians, can you just drop the head noun and just say *{SuDboghvaD
>vInob}? I don't think so, but then I've never been comfortable using -bogh.
>The only example of -bogh used without a noun/pronoun I could find is
>{Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'} "I find no match for what you have just said" --
>which is that problematic KCD .wav audio file.

No, I don't think you can.  I hate headless relative clauses.  If the head
noun is important enough to be the head noun of its relative clause, it's
damn well important enough to SAY, for Molor's sake.  At *least* a pronoun.

Besides, for "SuDbogh vay'", what ever is wrong with "SuDwI'" instead of
"*SuDbogh"?

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBM6Sio8ppGeTJXWZ9AQHq9AL/dlhGNxy/djJYkI5Rmfy1eTTSWYZyrMoY
ZZSIS63bg3KWGqJ0xVKiAwpkBHTxK6mtz+vhhrU4Luj1XgrtLV2JZlDTl0VzQ0ye
EO0VdNuVI7kwzUkDcXrzgd3He2Cjc8BT
=S4G2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Back to archive top level