tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 15 17:58:32 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Verbs of speaking

[email protected] on behalf of Terrence Donnelly wrote:
> I've always had a broad interpretation of which verbs could be used in 
> reporting discourse (verbs of speaking).  I write a lot of dialog, and I 
> liked being able to use verbs besides {jatlh, ja', jang}, etc. for variety.  

> But I've been re-examining my basis for this practice, and I wanted to get 
> the opinion of the list on this.
> 
> We know in English that you can use lots of different verbs as verbs of 
> speaking:
> 
> He said, "Show me the weapons."
> He added, "Show me the weapons."
> He challenged, "Show me the weapons."
> He exploded, "Show me the weapons."
> 
> All these are valid English and clearly understood.  It seems to me that the 

> reason we can use the last 3 verbs as verbs of speaking is because they
> really 
> stand for a longer phrase:
> 
> He added = He added a sentence, saying...
> He challenged = He challenged me by saying...
> He exploded = He exploded as he said...
> ("exploded" itself is a metaphor for "he seemed to explode", of course)

I'm not so sure this is what is happening.  It seems to me that English and 
Klingon are not very dissimilar when it comes to handling quotations.  In 
Klingon, you can put the quotation at either end:

qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'
HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'

and you can also do this with the English:

I told you, "Don't interrupt me!"
"Don't interrupt me!" I told you.

I'm not convinced that these longer phrases are really where these sentences 
are coming from.

In the Klingon, as far as I can tell, you should be able to remove the 
quotations and retain a perfectly grammatical sentence (though you're missing 
the context):

'avwI'vaD jatlh qama' jI'oj.
jang 'avwI' jI'oj je.

becomes

'avwI'vaD jatlh qama'
jang 'avwI'

or

muja' wo'rIv DaH bIHegh
jIjang Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam

becomes

muja' wo'rIv
jIjang

Similarly, English can do this, though it sounds clunky to our ears:

Worf told me, "Now you die."
I answered, "It is a good day to die."

becomes

Worf told me.
I answered.

Under this analysis, it seems likely that other words may act as verbs of 
saying.  Okrand never specifies exactly which ones these are, beyond giving a 
few examples in English with an "etc."  This may mean that as long as the word 
is being used as a verb of saying, it *is* a verb of saying.

My instincts tell me that this is not the way it works, though.  I believe 
that the obvious ones, like {ja'}, {jatlh}, and {tlhob} are the only ones that 
function this way.  This brings us to the question of exactly which words are 
verbs of saying.  I would hazard a guess (to be proven or disproven later by 
Okrand):

ja', jatlh, tlhob, ra', yu', jach  (I may be forgetting one or two.  These are 
just my guesses.)

I see no problem with saying phrases like

muqaDtaHvIS mutlhob ghaH choHon'a'
"Do you doubt me?" he challenged me.

More literally,

While he challenged me, he asked me, "Do you doubt me?"

> My questions for the list: is this an acceptable analysis?  Are similar 
> paraphrases attested in canon?

The *analysis* is valid, but it's not supported by canon, and my gut feelings 
say no (lughbe' muja' DujwIj).

> If this practice is not valid, I could just switch to the longer form using
> {jatlhDI'}, but I felt it was time to examine my rationale for this.

That's up to you.  If you think it *feels* right, then keep using it (unless 
it's ever proven wrong).  For myself, I usually just keep the descriptive 
phrase and the "saying" phrase in totally different sentences.  The fact that 
you're saying something isn't usually that important, it's *what* you say 
that's important.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97371.5

Back to archive top level