tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 11:46:46 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
suffix 'double-booking' (was: Re: "The ship in which I fled")
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: suffix 'double-booking' (was: Re: "The ship in which I fled")
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:45:52 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
lab Anthony.Appleyard
> ghItlh ghunchu'wI' (Subject: Re: "The ship in which I fled"):-
> > Since {pa'Daq'e'} is not grammatical, this sentence does not
> > work.
> Marian Schwartz <[email protected]> replied:-
> > It has always seemed to me that {-'e'} was inappropriately made
> > as a Type 5 noun suffix. After all, the introductory part to the
> > Type 5 says that to indicate something other than subject or
> > object, suffixes are used. But the examples for {-'e'} are for a
> > subject, and then an object. ...
>
> Among the constructions which are outlawed by the suffix place rule
> are:- <pa'Daq'e'> HotlhwI' tI'bogh qor = the room in which Kor is
> mending the scanner (two NS5's) (the above type) <paqvamwI'> = this
> book of mine (two NS4's) qama'pu' <HoHlaHlu'> = one can kill
> prisoners (two VS5's) <lamchoHqa'> puq = the child gets dirty again
> (two VS3's) <choghItlhchughjaj> = If, as I hope, you write to me
> (two VS9's) loghSut <DatuQqangniS> = you must be willing to wear a
> spacesuit (two VS2's) This seems to come from Okrand trying to
> shoehorn the world of possible meaning into too few categories. The
> rule against double-booking a suffix position is a useful easy rule
> of thumb which excludes many combinations which are nonsense
> because the suffixes contradict each other, such as DujHeyna',
> paqDajmaj, ghItlhlI'pu', Hubchuchbogh, etc etc etc; but also a few
> usable constructions end up in the bin along with all the veQ. It
> would have been as easy to classify noun suffix -'e' as an NSR
> (noun suffix rover). The pairs-laH and -lu', and -choH and -qa',
> were likely each made to `share a room' to avoid having several
> extra verb suffix classes with one member each. In KGT Okrand does
> admit that some Klingons wanting to say "one can ...", feeling
> trapped by inability to say -laHlu', from time to time come out in
> colloquial speech with the (so far slang and unofficial) mixed
> forms -luH or -la'.
Your point that some useful-seeming combinations are forbidden by the
rules of Klingon grammar is well taken, but your apparent implication
that we should be allowed to use the banned combinations when they
are not otherwise contradictoryl, is not.
I catch just about everyone saying things like {DaH vIyajchu'law'},
for "I think I understand it clearly now," but the immediate
response to a raised eyebrow and the repetition of {-chu'law'?} is a
replacement proverb, not a defense of the obvious meaning.
- Qov