tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 29 19:57:41 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon words for "subject" and "object"; ghunlu'wI'
>Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:05:38 -0800 (PST)
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anthony.Appleyard <[email protected]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
>Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 5:59 AM
>Subject: Klingon words for "subject" and "object"; ghunlu'wI'
>
>
>>Whether each of {tlhInganpu' wIleghlu'} or Latin {Tlingani
>>videmur} for "we Klingons are seen" is called a passive, or an active with
>an
>>impersonal subject and the agreement concords distorted, is a matter of
>>definition and convention.
>
>You cannot say "we Klingons" in Klingon. You cannot say {maHagh
>tlhInganpu'} for "We Klingons laugh." It just don't work that way! You'd
>have to say {tlhIngan maH. maHagh.} "We are Klingons. We laugh."
I'm not completely sure I dislike this. It's a sort of apposition.
There's something nice about "?maghoj Hoch" for "we all are learning."
Basically it's putting the noun in apposition with the implied pronoun.
There was an example somewhere along the way I *didn't* like, though, but I
forgot what it is.
~mark