tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 22:17:13 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

jIyajchoH...

Oct 18 ghItlh peHruS:

>chay' tlhIngan Duj chenlu' 'e' vIbej vIneH
>
>HoD Qanqor and I have used this construction, but some, including SuStel
and
>~mark, have claimed it is not correct. They have stated that {chay'} and
>other Klingon question words are not relative clause markers. I still think
>that we only need to look at the above as two separate sentences, the first
>being a question.

Ok - now I see... in fact ~mark replied, saying that he and Krankor use
sentences like <Dochvam nuq? 'e' vISovbe'> without claiming that there's a
relative pronoun involved in any way.

And, to peHruS, ~mark, HoD Qanqor, and any others who use this
construction - This usage is idiomatic and unsupported by canon, and
incorrect too. But, most of you probably knew that already.

Now here's how I feel about language - I use phrases and word associations
and the like with certain people, although theee resulting speech is
unintelligible to others, with the confidence that my friend will
understand. For example, a friend and I often greet each other with
epithets. It's not intended as threatening, it's understood as a greeting.
That's fine. I wouldn't use "Loser" or any of the other more intense
greetings with most people - the communication would differ substantially.
But if I see him, I say, "Loser" and he'll say "Dumbass" or something. It's
complete nonsense, but we understand what is communicated. (Highly
intellectual of us, I agree...)

I can accept that in Klingon too. This is a prime example. We must not claim
that QAO is correct Klingon, but as long as the speakers can understand each
other, who cares? This list, however, deals with 'proper' tlhIngan Hol -
therefore, the QAO variant of 6.2.5 cannot be accepted in discourse here.
Some unsuspecting <chu'wI'> will pick it up and then you know what
happens...

Note that there is nothing wrong with saying <Dochvam nuq? jISovbe'> short
of the use of a rhetorical question, which is not likely something most
Klingons would toss around like we humans do. But <Dochvam nuq? 'e'
vISovbe'> is weird, and <Dochvam nuq 'e' vISovbe'> is plain wrong.

Someone (qoror?) described <lu-> as the "whom" of Klingon (i.e. an
often-forgotten grammatical technicality) - I offer that QAO is an "ain't"
of Klingon. Not able to express an idea any better than anything else, not a
proper way to speak, but it is understandable even as it grates on some
ears. I think we ought to, with the same vigor we employ as we remember to
use <lu->, avoid use of QAO in our writing and speech. We don't want to
sound like we're from the hinterlands, do we?

Qermaq

Back to archive top level