tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 13 16:22:37 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC:courtroom

qa'SuvwI' lughmoHmeH ghItlh Qov:

>}*Judge*:nuq'e' Dajatlh WHAT did you say
>We had arguments about two differnt aspects of this sentence last month.
>Let's see if I can summarize. 
>.........
>2. {nuq} isn't actually a noun, so the type 5 noun suffix {-'e'} might not
>belong on it. I have been criticized for using {'Iv} and {nuq} too much
>like nouns.

I agree with your usage of -'e' here. If 'Iv and nuq are to be put "into
the sentence in the position that would be occupied by the answer" (TDK p.
69) then they need to be able to be used as the nouns they replace, in at
least some special cases.

NOTE: There is no such thing as *ghornagh*.

*ghornagh*vetlh yISop!(Eat that *ghornagh*!) --- nuq vISop DaneH? (You want
me to eat what?)(implies that I didn't hear what that was)

*ghornagh*vetlh yISop!(Eat that *ghornagh*!) --- nuqvetlh vISop DaneH?(You
want me to eat that what?) (implies that I don't know what that is)

Many noun suffixes don't belong on nuq or 'Iv for certain (plurals are
probably unnecessary), and even the above examples (mine and qa'SuvwI's)
would sound highly marked, I am sure. But that is their intent. The
respondent is surprised at what he/she heard, and used a construction which
could not be misinterpreted as meaning he/she wasn't paying attention. The
use of the suffix in each case augments the communication, and can hardly
be called wrong, even if it isn't as strict as we generally prefer.

Remember, dialogues in DIvI' Hol are rarely in the King's English -
although this list is concerned with correct grammar, conscious bending of
the rules, as above, should have its place in the appropriate context.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level