tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 11:51:38 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "The ship in which I fled"
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "The ship in which I fled"
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:31:50 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony.Appleyard <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: "The ship in which I fled"
> 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)
Easily sayable using an additional sentence or sentence fragment.
> qama'pu' <HoHlaHlu'> = one can kill prisoners (two VS5's)
See below.
> <lamchoHqa'> puq = the child gets dirty again (two VS3's)
This is covered by {lamqa'}. Literally, it means "He resumes being dirty."
As per the definition on TKD p.37, it means the child was dirty, stopped
being dirty, and started being dirty again.
> <choghItlhchughjaj> = If, as I hope, you write to me (two VS9's)
I see no reason to ever want to combine {-jaj} with Type 9 suffixes. {-jaj}
indicates a wish that the action occur, but not in a parenthetical way like
this.
> loghSut <DatuQqangniS> = you must be willing to wear a spacesuit (two
VS2's)
This one I can understand, and I simply have to reword to get the meaning I
want.
loghSut DatuQqang net poQ.
One requires that you be willing to wear a spacesuit.
> 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.
But guess what? In all languages there are things which it is simply not
that easy to say! An example based on something ghunchu'wI' once said:
translate the following into English as smoothly as the Klingon:
jIghIQchoH. Qo'noS vISuch. jIghIQHa'.
English does not have a universal "un-" prefix. You can only use it on some
words. You cannot say "I unvacation." You have to stretch it out and say
"I come back from vacation." Are we to complain about usable English
constructions ending up in the garbage bin? No! That's just the way it is.
> It would have been as
>easy to classify noun suffix -'e' as an NSR (noun suffix rover).
There are times when I've wished this very thing: I am trying to emphasize a
noun suffix instead of the entire noun. But guess what? If I want to do
so, I'll have to stress my speech, without a grammatical tool. We do it in
English all the time.
> 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.
{-lu'} and {-laH}, yes. Okrand even says words much to this effect in TKD
section 4.2.5. However, as I've demonstrated above, {-choH} and {-qa'} do
not work in tandem, and are correctly grouped together.
> 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'.
Yup, and this is exactly the ONLY suffix type which we have any evidence of
Klingons cheating at. The one which was already admitted to be a convenient
grouping, not a logical one. And since we also are not told that Klingons
every fiddle with the rest of the suffix groups, there is no reason at all
to believe that doing so would be acceptable to any Klingon.
I think the suffixes are well-organized. There are times when I wish we had
certain *other* suffixes which don't exist, but I can always find another
way to say what I'm trying to say.
SuStel
Stardate 97891.3