tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 09 19:46:29 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC++ : Some Questions on {jatlh}, {ghom}, etc.
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC++ : Some Questions on {jatlh}, {ghom}, etc.
- Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
---Dawut Duy'a' <[email protected]> wrote:
> While composing an email communiqué, I rendered {maghomqa'} for
> "we meet again" and as a result several questions have been conjured.
>
> In the spirit of {qajatlh} "I speak to you/I speak with you", would
it
> be acceptible to say, {qaghomqa'} for "I meet you again" or
{choghomqa'}
> for
> "you meet me again"; or should these be fully expanded to
{maghomchuqqa'
> maH} "we meet/encounter each other again" and so on?
I don't have any problem with any of them. After all, /tachDaq
maghom/ appears in TKD. I can't think of a canon /ghomchuq/ but nor
can I think of any reason to reject it.
> Some related questions were also manifested in my mind.
>
> The {qajatlh} Situation:
> We've seen {qajatlh} in "canon" for "I speak to you/I speak with you".
> The Postal Course includes {qaghItlh} for "I write to you". We've
also
> seen mention of their expanded/alternate forms, {SoHvaD jIjatlh} and
> {SoHvaD jIghItlh}, making use of the {-vaD} suffix's "for, intended
for"
> connotation. Here's the question: Does {SoHvaD jIjatlh} carry both
> meanings of "I speak to/with you" (as in directly addressing someone)
> and "I speak for you" (as in speaking on behalf of someone)?
In theory: yes. Of /-vaD/ Okrand says, "this suffix indicates that
the noun to which it is attached is in some way the beneficiary of the
action, the person or thing for whom or for which the activity occurs."
That certainly covers "on someone's behalf." And the use for an
indirect object is clear, too.
In practice: not really known.
> -Hypothetical example of question-
> ghojmoHwI': (checking chronometer) qatlh bIpaS be'?
A comma would make this clearer. As in the English. :)
> loD: (beginning to speak on behalf of be') ropmo' paS ghaH 'ach...
> be': (standing, addressing loD) SoHvaD yIjatlhQo'. jIHvaD jIjatlhlaH.
/jIHvaD yIyatlhQo'/. Both "me."
Example understood.
> The Pronouns-with-Prefixes Situation:
> We all know (or at least heard/read) about clipped Klingon, which is
an
> art unto itself. Aside from clipped Klingon, we see short-cuts or
> shortened phrases quite frequently. Most would write/speak {qaHoH}
for
> "I kill you" instead of the expanded {SoH HoH jIH}.
First Question:
> Wouldn't the {qa-} prefix still be required for {SoH qaHoH jIH}?
Even with pronouns, the correct Klingon would be /SoH qaHoH jIH/.
Does it appear somewhere as */SoH HoH jIH/? I would consider that
ignorant Klingon.
Second
> Question: Are the expanded renderings more correct or more
> grammatically preferred?
Goodness no. The pronouns are used, as described in canon,
1. to resolve or reduce ambiguity
2. for emphasis
I also find in writing a story that sometimes I use them now and again
3. for variety
but that's not canon.
It's definitely not more correct, and you would sound stupid if you
always used pronouns in every subject and object.
> Thanks to all who offer questions/comments regarding this post.
>
> tlhIngan maH!
> reH tlhInganpu' taHjaj!
> wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap.
> batlh maSuvtaHvIS maHeghjaj.
> manajtaHvIS qeylIS qa' wIghomjaj.
> ratlh vaghvatlh Hut jajmey.
These are from TKW, qar'a'?
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com