tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:20:31 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"...)



On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:24:27 -0800 (PST) Terrence Donnelly 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> At 08:48 AM 11/19/97 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
> >According to Terrence Donnelly:
... 
> All this means is that this construction wouldn't apply in the vast
> majority of cases.  I can still see times when it could be useful.
> {rInpu'DI' may', raQ wIcheHmoH. maQong DoywI'pu'.  maSop ghunghwI'pu'.}
> Kind of poetic, maybe, and not often called for, but definitely useful
> in certain situations.

Meanwhile, I could see these as statements made to third person 
entities, mocking their discontent. "We [Klingons] sleep, weary 
[Romulan] ones. We [Klingons] eat, hungry [Romulan] ones." 
Basically, in canon, we have examples of nouns in positions like 
this when they are third person subjects, or when they are 
references to the person or persons addressed, who may or may 
not be the subject of the verb. Those people are second person.

In this latter construction, the noun exists not as a subject 
but as a reference. Like, "Hi, John." or "Let me get that for 
you, John." or "Put down that betleH or I'll rip your lungs out, 
John." The reference to the second person is not gramatically 
attached to the verb at all. It is merely a spoken address, like 
Valkris's {HIja' jawwI' bangwI' je.}
 
> [...]
> >The third person is simply a larger world and as we speak, in
> >the middle of a sentence, we may shift around to different
> >third person entities, but in a sentence, there is only one
> >first person and only one second person. These entities may be
> >singular or plural, but during a communication, the bounds of
> >first and second person do not change. 
> 
> I can only repeat again "Not always."  I can easily envision situations
> in which the speaker needs to clearly identify who "you" is in an
> utterance (as in picking a subset out of a larger group) or when the
> speaker might want to distinguish between an inclusive and exclusive 
> "we".

I don't think this works. I see your point. I'm starting to 
learn Bahasa, and they have separate pronouns for the inclusive 
and exclusive "we" (is the person addressed included in the 
first person plural? Yes = inclusive. No = exclusive). 
Meanwhile, this is not a feature of Klingon. I think it is one 
of those areas where context speaks for itself. I think these 
ideas can be better expressed through other means.
 
> >That's one of the basic
> >environmental truths about language in general when one
> >addresses the issue of person. {legh. legh yaS. HoD legh yaS.}
> >The only reason to not express the explicit noun for third
> >person is that context makes that person's identity clear.
> >
> 
> Right, and that would be the same reason for including an
> explicit noun in the cases noted above: to make it clear
> who exactly was meant by "you" or "we".  After all, Klingons
> may be inaccurate, but they are never imprecise. 8+)

One would not be imprecise or inaccurate by keeping simpler 
references to person.
 
> >First and second person already imply a context identifying
> >those members. You are not identifying with an explicit noun
> >for first or second person. You are merely describing members
> >of the group. That is not the usual function of an explicit
> >noun as subject or object.
> 
> This may be a good argument. I don't completely understand it, 
> and must ponder its implications.
> 
> [...]
> > I don't think your argument is completely without merit,
> >though it is not nearly as compelling as you seem to think it
> >is.
> >
> >My current position is that I likely won't correct you if you
> >use this. Instead, I'll just ignore the superfluous noun and
> >understand your sentence, though it will feel somewhat
> >confusing. After I filter out the noun, it will make sense.
> >
> >I will not use this construction and if anyone asks me if I
> >think it is okay, I'll tell them that I think it is wrong. My
> >gut tells me it is wrong and there is nothing in canon to
> >convince me otherwise.
> >
> >My main argument against it is this:
> >
> >1. It is definitely unnecessary.
> >
> This argument I consider irrelevant.  The only person who can make
> decisions about what the language needs or doesn't need is Okrand.
> You may consider something unnecessary, but that doesn't negate the
> possibility of its existence.  I often think mosquitos are unnecessary,
> but that doesn't make them go away. 

Tell that to bats and dragonflies. Mosquitoes are big in the 
food chain.
 
> >2. Sentences that use it are confusing. The extra noun at the
> >end sounds third person and seems to disagree with the subject
> >implied by the prefix. I cannot absorb it without looking at
> >the sentence several times. Since all that preceeds the noun
> >fails to explain its function in the sentence, I reflexively
> >expect something to follow the noun to explain what it is doing
> >in the sentence. Nothing follows and I have go back and look at
> >the sentence again to try to parse this noun into it.
> >
> 
> I could say that this is just a result of your unfamilarity with
> the construction.  I'd wager that there was a lot about Klingon
> grammar that was confusing when you first started learning it.

Six years ago.
 
> But I certainly appreciate your comments.  I'll continue to hold
> my opinion, but not use this construction (or at least, not much), 
> and maybe someday Okrand will tell us if its legal.

qay'be'. qavuvtaH.
 
> >
> >charghwI'
> >
> -- ter'eS
> 

charghwI'




Back to archive top level