tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 25 06:54:21 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vIttlheghmey: was Dream Proverb
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: vIttlheghmey: was Dream Proverb
- Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 09:54:46 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 22 May 1997 22:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' charghwI':
> >nucharghta' luneHpu'bogh chaH DISopmo' maQuch.
> >[...]
> >I think in my original translation, I used {-taH} instead of
> >{pu'}, but I've changed my mind, since I don't assume they
> >continue to want much as they are eaten.
>
> Unfortunately, both {-pu'} and {-taH}, being aspect suffixes, are forbidden
> by that nagging rule in the middle of page 66 of The Klingon Dictionary.
I tend to remember this when there is an explicit {'e'}, but at
one point I thought the rule did not apply to {neH} since I see
it as fundamentally different from other Sentence As Object
constructions. Meanwhile, I did go back and look it up once and
learned that indeed he EXPLICITLY includes the {neH} as a verb
that can't use the aspect marker in this situation.
That's when I realized that {neH} probably CREATED the whole
stupid rule as Okrand justified that infamous line about "I
wanted prisoners/I told you, 'Target engines only'" This didn't
occur to me until an offhanded remark at qep'a' wejDIch when
Okrand commented that at one point {-pu'} was being used as
simple past tense.
I suspect we have very little understanding of the depth to
which Klingon grammar has evolved from the contortions that
Okrand has gone through to justify blown or relabeled or
lip-synched lines in the movies.
toH QaghHomwIjmo' qaja': HeghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu' Hagh qoH neH!
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'