tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 30 18:37:35 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "The ship in which I fled"
>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:54:52 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Anthony.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
>
> 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)
Note that many natural languages forbid this.
> <paqvamwI'> = this book of mine (two NS4's)
Note that even English has to use a circumlocution to handle this; you
can't say "this my book" in normal speech (it doesn't sound completely
wrong, but it may be apposition: this, my book).
> qama'pu' <HoHlaHlu'> = one can kill prisoners (two VS5's)
Okrand addresses this specifically. It's one of those things Klingon can't
do with normal suffixes in proper speech.
> <lamchoHqa'> puq = the child gets dirty again (two VS3's)
So?
> <choghItlhchughjaj> = If, as I hope, you write to me (two VS9's)
I don't think this would mean to me what you want, even were it legal.
Even English needs to use a parenthetical sentence for this.
> loghSut <DatuQqangniS> = you must be willing to wear a spacesuit (two VS2's)
Your point?
Many, many languages have restrictions on the way they do things... In
fact, I hear it's a universal that any language which has suffixes has
rules for ordering them (You can't reorder the suffixes in
"nationalization").
> 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'.
Were I Okrand, I probably would *deliberately* put in a few things like
this, so the language would have some "real" feel to it and not simply be a
code. Languages in the real world have irregularities and limitations that
make this look like honey and benison; do you begrudge him a chance to make
his language a little more believable?
~mark