tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 18 14:20:20 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)

At 09:40 AM 11/18/97 -0800, SuStel wrote:
>From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
>
>>>You cannot say "we Klingons" in Klingon.  You cannot say {maHagh
>>>tlhInganpu'} for "We Klingons laugh."  It just don't work that way!
>>
>>Just to pick a nit:  How do we know it doesn't work that way?  Is
>>it explicitly forbidden by canon?
>
>We don't know (i.e. it is not printed in Okrandian script).  It is my firm
>and unshakable-except-only-by-one-person opinion.  It also sounds silly to
>me to do it your way.  I rely highly on my instincts in knowing right from
>wrong in Klingon, and this one is sounding every alarm.  I know that you
>will not accept this explanation.
>
You're right about that.  Arguments of the type "it just doesn't feel right"
or "it violates my instincts" or even "the language doesn't need it" are
non-arguments: totally subjective, unanswerable.  If we all started 
talking that way, then we might just as well shut down the server 
and go home.  If you don't like a legal construction, then don't use it, 
but you can't condemn it simply because of that.  

The only reason that can absolutely make something illegal is Okrand's
saying it is.  Canon that seems to contradict a construction or carefully
reasoned arguments can make a construction highly unlikely (such as
the recent QAO debate).  Subjective feelings are simply that; they can't 
_prove_ anything. (Although a preponderance of opinions from those with the
proper credentials can be a powerful argument, I admit.)

You condemned this construction so categorically that I assumed you 
had facts to back up your statement. I have reasons why 
I think this construction is valid, which I will give you below.  
  
>> It seems like simple apposition
>>to me (to those who reply that apposition needs two nouns, just
>>think of this as a briefer form of {maHagh maH tlhInganpu'}).  Why
>>isn't this phrase legal: {bIQIp SoH qoH} "You, fool, are stupid."
>
>I don't think Klingon apposition would work with pronouns.  They already
>perform so many other functions, this one just doesn't seem to fit.  I
>highly, seriously, and completely doubt that it could also be elided.  This
>apposition is anything except "simple."
>

You're right about this, too, in a way: the question has nothing to do
with apposition.  I spoke too soon.  What we are really considering
is whether a verb with a first or second person subject prefix can take
an expressed subject noun (or in the case of -lu', first or second
person objects).  I think it can because:

1. We already know from TKD that a verb with any subject prefix can 
optionally take an expressed pronoun. {maHagh} and {maHagh maH} are 
both legal (tho with a change in emphasis, to be sure).

2. We also know that a verb with a third person subject prefix can
take an expressed noun subject or not: {legh} and {legh yaS} are
both OK.

3. It seems valid to me to believe that since all three persons
exhibit the same behavior with pronouns, they can also exhibit the
same behavior with nouns, namely, the type of behavior already
exhibited by the third person.

4. It's not prohibited anywhere in the Okrandian corpus.

Although usefullness is no criterion (who decides what is useful and
what is a luxury in a language, and who decides what luxuries a language
can do without?), the construction is useful.  Its purpose with 1st and
2nd person subjects is the same as its purpose with 3rd person subjects:
to provide more information about the subject contained in the verb.
If you say {legh}, the entire universe of persons is a possible subject.
If you say {legh yaS}, you've narrowed it down.  If you say {maHagh},
the entire inclusive 'we' universe could be the subject.  If you say
{maHagh tlhInganpu'}, you've narrowed it down.

Sure, you wouldn't need this construction often, and yes, there are
other ways to say it.  You could also say {yaS ghaH. legh.} for
{legh yaS}, but if an alternative existed, why would you want to?

Here's exactly why we shouldn't rely on subjective "it doesn't feel
right" statements.  I've been studying Klingon for over 6 years now,
I like to think my writing style is clear, accurate and pretty 
conservative.  This particular construction doesn't seem weak or 
silly to me.  In fact, it seems so logical and natural that I never 
considered it could be controversial, and I am surprised at your reaction.  
I know your skills in Klingon are formidable.  Relying
just on "instincts" has led us to an impasse.  I'd like to put the
discussion on a firmer footing.

-- ter'eS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711

Back to archive top level