tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 19 11:48:09 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"...)

First, allow me to apologize for my overzealous use of the word "can't," in
things like "you can't do that."  I am not trying to say that I make the
laws.  However, I am very, very certain that I am correct, and constantly
putting disclaimers in my writing to the effect that I may be wrong but I
don't think so is, in my opinion, a waste of time.

One of the most important reasons that I admire the Klingon culture and
language is the fact that you get straight to the point and not bother
dilly-dallying with irrelevant rituals and details.  I tend to think and act
this way myself (believe me, I am a real bore at polite social
occasions--it's just people standing around and talking about nothing at
all!).  I can only bear to write "I don't think" so many times.

So remember, if I make statements which sound like I'm passing judgement and
making law, that is not my intention.  I prefer to reserve "I don't think"
for times when I have significant doubts about the matter at hand, not for
when I'm very certain but acknowledge that there is a tiny chance that the
situation is otherwise.  I recognize all others' rights to disagree with me,
and to argue if they wish or remain silent if they wish, and I will continue
to respect you even if we disagree on everything.  And no, I will not put a
Klingon translation of "The above represents my opinions only" in my
signature.  :)

Now that the human disclaimer is out of the way, let's get back to the
Klingon mindset!

-----Original Message-----
From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)

>>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

And a noun is third-person.

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

Your construction violates TKD section 4.1.1, and the chart found therein.
{ma-} is a prefix which indicates a first-person, plural subject, whereas
{tlhInganpu'} is a third-person, plural subject.

>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.

That is exactly the function of apposition: to provide more information
about an expression.  (Hee hee!  Talk about inclusive!)  Are we, or are we
not, talking about
apposition?  If we are, then you are saying that you're using {tlhInganpu'}
in apposition with a dropped pronoun.  There is no precedent for
such a construction in Klingon.

>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?

Of course you would not want to say {yaS ghaH.  legh} as a typical
statement.  This example is a set-up.  I claim that for every example of
mismatched subject you can produce, I can show you a better way of saying
it.  For example, if there is enough context, {maHagh} will be enough.  If
there isn't enough context, then you've got to generate some!  People don't
talk in a vacuum (I am, of course, speaking metaphorically, though it is
also literally true).  If you had a room full of Klingons, Ferengi, and
Vulcans (yeah, right), and one Klingon wanted to show that the Klingons in
the room were not afraid of danger, appropriate, grammatical, and flowing
statements would include

Qobmo' Hagh tlhInganpu'!
Klingons laugh at the danger!
The topic of conversation, presumably, is whether certain people in the
room are afraid of whatever danger is being discussed.

Qobmo' maHagh maH!
*We* laugh at the danger!
Said in this context, that of three distinct alien species in one room, it
would be fairly plain to any listener what was meant.

Relating to the first example, if it were really necessary for the Klingon
to specify that only those Klingons in the room laughed when facing the
danger, and that none of the other species in the room would, and that his
statement didn't necessarily apply to Klingons outside of the room, he could
just say

Qobmo' Hagh tlhInganpu'vam!
These Klingons laugh at the danger!

If, for some nit-picky reason this Klingon needed to specify that the
Klingons in the room, including *himself* (in case that hadn't been clear
yet), no other Klingons, and no other aliens in the room, the Klingon would
say

Qobmo' maHagh jIH tlhInganpu'vam je!
These Klingons and I laugh at the danger!

There is absolutely no need to resort to a questionable construction with no
evidence of its being valid.  There is also no reason to call any of these
examples unwieldy.

>I'd like to put the discussion on a firmer footing.

pItlh.

SuStel
Stardate 97885.7

Back to archive top level