tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 02 13:04:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: ' and other stuff
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: ' and other stuff
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
At 09:48 AM 9/2/97 -0700, Scott D. Randel wrote:
Good questions all: you're thinking about what you're reading.
> I understand that ' at the end of a word represents a glottal stop.
Yes. And not just at the end of a word, after any vowel, w or y.
> What is its function at the beginning of a word, and how does it
> affect pronunciation?
It's actually the same: a glottal stop. But don't worry about
twisting your throat to make some weird new sound at the beginning of
a word like {'In}. English speakers automatically start bare vowels
with a glottal stop. Say out loud the English words "bin" and "in"
and pay particular attention to what the very back of your
tongue does as you start the "i" in each word. As you say the bare
vowel on "in" the back of your tongue rises slightly in a a way it
does not do inside the word "bin."
We English speakers actually have great trouble learning to *not* to
put a glottal stop before bare vowels, but fortunately for us, no
Klingon syllable starts with one.
> TKD 3.3.2 explains that some nouns can be plural even without
> {pu'). The examples then use {pu'}! What's worse, the suffix is
> affixed to the verb! If this is not a mistake, then {Holvam
> Qatlhlaw'}.
The verb goes before its subject: say {Qatlhlaw' Holvam}.
I see the examples you're looking at: {yaS vImojpu'} and {yaS DImojpu'}
{-pu'} is both a noun suffix that produces the plural of language
users and a verb suffix that produces the perfective aspect. Other than
looking alike these suffixes are completely unrelated. But you're right,
very confusing
in this example.
The point Okrand is making here is that it is unnecessary to say {yaSpu'
DImojpu'}. Many of us can't become one officer, so the plural nature of
{yaS} is clear without the suffix.
If you just see the word {targh} it could be one targ or many targhs.
There are sometimes clues elsewhere in the sentence that show which
it is, though. {nIlegh targh} has to be "the targs see you" and
{Dulegh targh} must be "the targ sees you." And {peng vIghuS} must
refer to one torpedo, because the plural of {peng} is {cha}.
I can think of one English noun that behaves almost like most Klingon nouns,
with the plural optional: "fish."
"We saw the fish" - you don't know how many fish we saw.
"We saw seven fish" - fish obviously plural from context
"We saw seven fishes" - fish explicitly plural
"The fish sees us." - fish obviously singular from context
Most English nouns have to be explicitly plural or singular: "cat" vs. "cats".
There are a few Klingon nouns like this: {mang} vs. {negh}
> Is it acceptable to say {lu'be'} to mean "I'd rather not"?
No. {-be'} is a verb suffix and {lu'} is not a verb. {lu'} is an
exclamation expressing intention to comply with an order or
request. The exclamation that refuses an order is {Qo'}.
To quibble about an order, try something like (in response to the
order {yIHoH!}) {vIHoHqangqu'be'} "I'm not all that inclined to kill
him" or {vIHoHbe' 'e' vImaS} "I'd prefer not to kill him."
Qov ([email protected])
Beginners' Grammarian