tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 10:54:17 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "The ship in which I fled"
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "The ship in which I fled"
- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:56:21 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:54:54 -0800 (PST) "Anthony.Appleyard"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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)
There are many languages which do not extend relative clauses
this far. They get along just fine without this feature.
> <paqvamwI'> = this book of mine (two NS4's)
You are unnecessarily mixing two different reference systems for
the book. paqvam 'oH paqwI''e'!
> qama'pu' <HoHlaHlu'> = one can kill prisoners (two VS5's)
Okrand deals with this in KGT and directly addressed the
conflict in TKD.
> <lamchoHqa'> puq = the child gets dirty again (two VS3's)
The {-choH} here is meaningless. {-qa'} already implies a change
of state.
> <choghItlhchughjaj> = If, as I hope, you write to me (two VS9's)
"May you if you write me!" This is gibberish. You can't have a
conditional curse or blessing all in one clause. You might
preceed a blessing/curse with a conditional clause which would
be a condition necessary for the curse/blessing, but mixing the
two does not have a meaning anything like you suggest. Dap 'oH.
> loghSut <DatuQqangniS> = you must be willing to wear a spacesuit (two VS2's)
The {-qang} is unnecessary. {loghSut DatuQnIS.} Willingness is
rather implied. {loghSut DatuQqangbe' vaj bIHegh.}
> This seems to come from Okrand trying to shoehorn the world of possible
> meaning into too few categories.
I'm actually quite impressed that he managed to give us a set of
tools this effective and efficient.
> 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.
I simply don't see those "lost, useful" constructions as all
that necessary. Many you see as useful, I see as gibberish.
Others involve one suffix already implying the other. The
stronger one wins.
> It would have been as
> easy to classify noun suffix -'e' as an NSR (noun suffix rover).
It would have been easy to use English vocabulary and save us
all this memorization. Easiness of potential other decisions is
not that interesting.
> 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.
I think the {-laH} and {-lu'} conflict was intentional simply to
add an element of arbitrariness to the grammar to make it more
like a real langauge. Natural languages often have this kind of
conflict. I don't see {-choH} and {-qa'} as clashing, since
{-qa'} already implies {-choH}.
> 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'.
Yep. He sure does. No argument there.
charghwI'