tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 31 23:03:31 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: KLBC-First Time



[email protected] on behalf of Kenneth Traft wrote:
> >Mike wrote:
> >Mike pongwIj
> >My name is Mike.
> 
> >SuStel answered:
> >To say <something> is <something else>, you need to use a "to be" 
> >construction, as described in TKD section 6.3.
> 
> <Mike pongwIj> may be acceptable Clipped Klingon.  I am   NOT arguing 
against 
> the advice -- it was GOOD.  I believe the list guidelines say that formal 
> Klingon should be used here.  From a "beginning standpoint", I believe it 
> should be mentioned that Clipped Klingon is an acceptable aspect of tlhIngan 

> Hol.

I agree that this may be acceptable Clipped Klingon, and so might {pongwIj 
*Mike*}.  Then again, these may *not* be acceptable.

> >SuStel also answered:
> >There's another, more complicated way to say this.  I'll just show you:
> >jIHvaD *Mike* ponglu'
> >I am called "Mike."
> 
> <jIHvaD Mike ponglu'>  appears to be incorrect (TKD 4.2.5). I believe it 
> should be Mike vIponglu'  i.e. I'm called Mike. I often forget the required 
> prefix when using <-lu> because I keep thinking (one does).  I don't believe 

> there is canon to support jIHvaD *Mike* ponglu'.

First, to address your sentence: if you say {*Mike* vIponglu'}, you've just 
introduced a double-object, or at least a weird placing of direct and indirect 
objects.  The object of {vIponglu'} is {jIH}, so how can it be "Mike," too?  
There *is* evidence that prefixes don't always match their objects, but I 
don't believe that this is the sort of case that the evidence applies to.

Now, {jIHvaD *Mike* ponglu'} is quite certainly correct.  Ignoring the 
{jIHvaD} for a moment: {*Mike* ponglu'} means "Mike is named," or "Someone 
names Mike."  The very sentence itself gives Mike his name.  You don't know 
*who* Mike is yet, but you know that he's been named.

Now, let's add the {jIHvaD}.  {jIHvaD *Mike* ponglu'} "Mike is named, and that 
action is applied to me."  That is, after all, what {-vaD} does.  This 
sentence would appear to be correct.

If you want canon, there's the sentence in SkyBox card S27: {roD 'oHvaD juHqo' 
ponglu' neH} "It [Qo'noS] is usually referred to as simply 'The Homeworld.'"

> >SuStel also used the form:
> >[yourname] 'oH ponglIj'e'.
> 
> In the recent issue of qIb HeHDaq, Glen Proechel wrote the following 
refering 
> to the use of  naming.  I think the use of "nuq" may set a precedence for
> this 
> statement.
> 
> ********** from the Beginner's Column  ********
> Introductions -- My name is ...
> 
> There are several ways of asking and stating your name.  The most common 
are:
> 
> ponglIj nuq?  (What's your name?)
> ponglIj 'oH nuq'e'?  (What is your name? -- formal usage)

Both of these are absolutely correct.  I would also like to add

nuq 'oH ponglIj'e'?

However, Glen's notes are a little biased towards making a point; let me 
rewrite them a little more objectively (I think):

ponglIj nuq? (What's your name? -- Clipped Klingon)
ponglIj 'oH nuq'e' / nuq 'oH ponglIj'e' (What's your name?)

The second line may be the more formal, but this doesn't mean that the Clipped 
Klingon is the standard.  In fact, the second line's sentences are Standard 
Klingon.

> To which you would answer:
> 
> pongwIj be'tor?  (B'Etor my name -- this is Clipped Klingon)
> pongwIj 'oH be'tor'e'?  (B'Etor is my name -- this is formal usage)

And, of course, {be'etor 'oH pongwIj'e'}.  (Watch out for the spelling of 
{be'etor}!)

In fact, I'd usually choose {be'etor 'oH pongwIj'e'}.  Using the emphasized 
translation form that Okrand uses in TKD, this might be said as "As for my 
name, it is B'Etor."  This emphasizes "my name," which is also emphasized in 
the Klingon with the {-'e'}.  However, saying {pongwIj 'oH be'etor'e'} comes 
out as "As for B'Etor, it is my name."  But no one was asking about "B'Etor," 
they were asking about your name!  Here, "your name" should almost certainly 
be the subject.

> Clipped Klingon is the easiest and the most straightforward method.  When 
> using formal Klingon, the pronoun <'oH> is used and the <'-e'> topic marker
> is 
> attached to the subject noun.

Again, it is not the case that Standard Klingon is created by adding words to 
Clipped Klingon; Clipped Klingon is created by removing pieces from Standard 
Klingon.

> Note that <nuq> and <the name> are the
> subjects 
> and they are placed in the subject position in the sentence.

Yes, when you answer a question, you should probably leave it in the same 
form, and just substitute in your answer for {nuq}.

> You can also probably say:
> 
> chay' bIpong'egh?  (How do you call yourself?)

pe'vIl jIpong'egh!

This *might* work, but I'd rather go for something we've seen and *know* that 
it works.

> To which the answer would be:
> 
> be'tor jIpong'egh.  (I call myself B'Etor.)

Ack!  No.  Unless {pong} can be considered a verb of saying, this isn't right. 
 You need {vI-} if you've got an object, but you need {jI-} when you're using 
{-'egh}.  {chay'} often acts like a pronoun for an adverbial, and this is 
probably what you'd need to answer this question with.

> ***********   end  *****************
> 
> Canon shows a definite and consistant <nuq> placement in the "subject" 
> position of a sentence for these types of questions:
> 
> THE KLINGON DICTIONARY
> qaStaH nuq jay'  --  What the #$*@ is happening?
> Duj ghoStaH nuq  --  What is coming toward the ship?
> nughoStaH nuq  --  What is coming toward us?

These aren't "these types"  ["to be" sentences].  These just happen to be 
asking about the subject.  If we wanted to, we could correctly ask, {nuq 
wIghoStaH} "What are we approaching?"

> CONVERSATIONAL KLINGON
> Dochvam nuq  --  What is this?
> Daqvam nuq  --  What is this place?
> pa'Daq qaStaH nuq  --  What's happening over there?

Out of these three, {Dochvam nuq} and {Daqvam nuq} are relevant.  The third 
one is just any question with {nuq} as the subject.  This shows a typical 
sentence of noun plus {nuq}, but we aren't sure whether this is Clipped 
Klingon (coming from {Dochvam 'oH nuq'e'} and {Daqvam 'oH nuq'e'}) or if {nuq} 
acts somewhat like a pronoun (since that's generally what question words are) 
in a "to be" construction.  This is inconclusive.

> CONVERSATIONAL KLINGON
> Sojvetlh 'oH nuq  --  What is that food?  (I didn't hear the <'e'>)

Then you weren't listening; it's perfectly obvious.  But this isn't in 
Conversational Klingon, this is in Power Klingon, in the section on Klingon 
dialects.  The regional version was {sojvets oh nuq}.

But there's more in Conversational Klingon!  How about

nuq mI'lIj tera'ngan
What is your number, Terran?

This is an example (the only one without a pronoun, I think) of {nuq} being 
before the noun.

> STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY
> Dujvetlh 'oH nuq? rIn.  --  What ship is that? ...over.

This sentence would appear to either be an error, or very interesting grammar, 
until you realize that the speaker has the same regional dialect described in 
Power Klingon!  He pronounces it like {duj vets oh nuq rIyn}.  Thus, I would 
not attribute much to this sentence; this guy was from the hinterlands, and no 
self-respecting Klingon would be caught dead speaking this dialect!

> qaStaH nuq jay'  --  What the #$*@ is happening?

Again, this has nothing to do with placement of {nuq} in "to be" sentences.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97416.1


Back to archive top level