tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 08 15:24:48 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Extra stuff qororvo'

jatlh qoror:

> 	wa')  We all know that the apostrophe in Klingon is a consonant of its
> own.  But "apostrophe" is a clumsy word.
> Four syllables and ten letter, and sometimes if we want to spell something 
out
> (for instance, to show the difference between SeHlaw, control panel, and
> SeHlaw', he/she seemingly controls it), it's very difficult.  But I have a
> solution, and if you don't want to use it, fine, but I'm going to use it.  
How
> about saying "pip?"  Three letters, one syllable, and I've never heard it 
said
> except in the UK.  (It might not be used there now, so if that's true, 
apologies
> to UK members.)  If it isn't used anymore that makes it even better -- 
you'll
> never confuse it for something else.  If you don't know, "pip" means "seed,"
> such a "a pomegranate pip."  The apostrophe in Englist looks a bit like a 
seed.
> It doesn't in the font that I use ('), but it is in TKD, for instance.  This
> might help some of you.  Once again, if you don't want to use it, fine, you
> don't have to, but I think I will.

Then you will have to explain your "pip" word to every newcomer you meet here. 
 And that certainly seems more complex than having to spell out "apostrophe" 
once every hundredth message (more for me, since I'm the BG, but I don't mind 
it at all).

There are a lot of other long words that we all have to deal with in life.  I 
don't plan on learning Newspeak anytime soon.

> 	cha') How about "yI-" at the beginning of a verb and "'a'" at the end?
> It sounds ungrammatical, I know, & it probably is, but there's nothing 
against
> it in TKD (at least, from a quick glance, so somebody might prove me wrong) 
and
> it says in the introduction that Klingons are never completely grammatical, 
so a
> fruity translation of yIruch'a' might be "Will you or will you not go 
ahead?!"
> with special emphasis.  I can't do italics with my email, but I mean to.

Just because something is syntactically sound does not mean that it makes 
semantic sense.  Imperatives with any Type 9 Verb Suffixes are nonsense, 
thought the only one we're explicitly forbidden from is {-jaj}.

I do not agree with your interpretation of *{yIruch'a'}.  I see it as a 
mistake only.  Here's a test: how do you interpret *{yIruchmeH}?  Do you think 
you're going to come up with the same guess as me?  Do you think I'd 
understand your guess if you used it in context?  I doubt it.

> 	wej) We know that "naDev," "pa'," and "Dat," are nouns, and basically
> mean "the area around here," "the area around there," and "all places," but 
they
> functiion pretty much as adverbs, without -Daq and at the beginning of the
> sentences, and meaning "here," "there," and "everywhere."  Okay, a bit 
weird,
> but fine.

Essentially, yes.  Remember, Klingon linguists formally recognize only three 
types of words: {DIpmey}, {wotmey}, and {chuvmey}.  Adverbials are {chuvmey}, 
and are classified as such for convenience by Terran scholars.  Klingon nouns 
with Type 5 Noun Suffixes (except {-'e'}), nouns acting as timestamps, the 
three words you listed above, and subordinate, relative, and purpose clauses 
all tend to have adverbial-like functions.  Actually, just about anything that 
isn't the subject, object, or noun of the main sentence helps in an 
adverbially-styled way.

> Now, however, I have realized some adverbs in tera'ngan Hol that take
> articles, and in fact don't work the same way without the articles!  Ready?  
"A
> lot" and "a bit," in such sentences as "he sleeps a lot," and "he works a 
bit."
> How's that?

I fail to see your point.  Klingon does not use articles.  You seem to be 
connecting this with the three nouns that never use {-Daq}.  Please explain.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97185.1

Back to archive top level