tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 05 13:44:09 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ram chal wanI'

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

>Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 07:28:13 -0800
>From: DaQtIq <[email protected]>
>
>>> > cha' yuQ vIleghlaw'. yuQ Doq vIlegh 'ej chaq yuQ tInqu' vIlegh.
>>> > DIch vIghajbe'.
>>> 
>>> This is on my list of grammatical details I want to pry out of Okrand.  
>>> Does one "possess" certainty? (This by the way is precisely the sort of 
>>> word I'd expect to find a Klingon verb for).  You can argue that while 
>>> this is an abstraction, one can possess it just as we can say one 
>>> possesses honor (no TKD or TKW handy, but I'm fairly certain [sic] that 
>>> we have canonical examples using "have" with honor). But does that make 
>>> it appropriate to use with "DIch?"  I understood what DaQtIq intended, 
>>> but I don't know if it's grammatical.  SuStel? Seqram?
>>
>>Well, there's {pIch vIghajbe'} "It's not my fault," on the first page of TKD 
>>and in the Useful Phrases section.
>
>While it is grammatical and has foundation in canon, i'm not very enthused
>by this sentence either. It seems very English. Since <pIch> is also a verb,
>why didn't Dr. Okrand use <HIpIchQo'!> for "It's not my fault!" ? I think
>i should have worked with the suffixes rather than take the lazy way out.
>Perhaps <yuQ tInqu' vIleghbejbe'>... hmmm... with <-bejbe'> does the
>uncertainity shifts to the verb from the object? Better: <chaq yuQ tInqu'
>vIlegh. jISovbejbe'.>

I have also used "DIch vIghajbe'" based on the pIch sentence (I think
Krankor was the first I recall to use DIch vIghajbe'; I know that when I
had the same question it was he who pointed me to pIch vIghajbe').  I
occasionally think of other weirder constructions, like "DIchmo'
vIjatlhlaHbe'".  Note: this is a strange one.  Hold on.  It LOOKS like it
means "I can't say it, because of certainty," i.e., certainty is preventing
me from saying it.  And it could mean this too, I think.  But Klingon
may be (and there may be evidence for this) ambiguous in the scope of its
adverbial phrases.  I can also translate this as "I can't say this due to
certainty" i.e. "it is not the case that: I can say this because of
certainty," i.e. I am not certain.  Note that in this usage, the -be'
really winds up negating the -mo', and not the actual verb.  Strange?
Yes.  Unheard-of?  No.  Consider canon: "Hoch DaSopbe'chugh, batlh
bIHeghbe'"/"Eat everything or you will die without honor."  The -be' on
"bIHeghbe'" negates the adverbial "batlh", not its verb (obviously the
person will eventually die, but the sentence means "It is not the case
that: you will die honorably.")  Can we extend this as I have done?
Perhaps.  It's certainly something worth thinking about.

~mark

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

iQB1AwUBMx3pIMppGeTJXWZ9AQEmAAL+Il9gXk8XrMw4q3BA3GOh+1VErxYPgr81
HSnZgIMZHHoRYmYDr9J4oW32ANz6NkitxvEgIOdWl00BC5oZODBI+LZ7fuYRng1g
8tDZ5RXbut3qDaxsBPm/mpI4OK+2uoI7
=Voba
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level