tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 18 15:28:16 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verbs of Saying
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Verbs of Saying
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
---Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>
> At 08:29 AM 8/18/98 -0700, Qov wrote:
> >---qe'San - Jon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> [pe'..]
> >> After reading the above I couldn't help thinking about {pong (v)}
> >again.
> >>
> >> It is repeatedly said that we don't know how the verb is used as we
> >> haven't been given any cannon examples. I'm sorry for bringing it
up
> >> again but I thought, why isn't pong considered to be a verb of
saying?
> >>
> >> If it were treated as such then we do have cannon examples as
referred
> >> to {jatlh} etc.
> >
> >This is one of the most creative suggestions I've ever seen for
/pong/.
> >It's also succint, quite clear to read and doesn't actually propose
> >any new grammar. By making the name a separate utterance -- and a
> >name can definitely be a separate utterance, if only in the vocative
> >(when you are calling someone) -- you sidestep the whole problem of
> >where to put a second object.
> >
> >This goes along with another suggestion I've seen and understood:
> >
> >/vIponglu'DI' Qov jatlhlu'/
> >
> >> In other words the following sentences might
> >> translate as:
> >>
> >> I call my pet 'lunch' - {SajDaj vIpong . megh}
> >> or {megh . SajDaj vIpong}
> >>
> >> The crew call the ship 'garbage scow' -
> >> {Duj lupong beqpu' . veQDuj } .
> >>
> >> Kahless called his new weapon 'the sword of honour' -
> >> {nuH chu'Daj pongpu' qeylIS'e' . batlh 'etlh } .
> >
> >/pongpu'/ implies to me that someone later changed the name. Just
> >/pong/ for simple past tense.
> >
> >> I am called qe'San (some call me qe'San) -
> >> {vIponglu' . qe'San } ????.
> >
> >Neat suggestion. I like it. I don't think it violates anything. It
> >doesn't mean it's the way Klingons say it, but I think they would be
> >able to understand it.
>
> But in these cases, /pong/ has an object, and an utterance, and I got
> the implication from the discussion of /jatlh/ that a verb of saying
> could have either an object or an accompanying utterance, but not
> both. Or would you consider legal something like ?/"bImej vIneH"
> mu'tlhegh vIjatlh/ (translating, I guess as "'I want to leave' I
> speak a sentence")?
When /jatlh/ has an object and speech attached, the object is usually
the person addressed.
?/qapong <matlh>/ - I called you Maltz.
/qajatlh <yI'el>/ - I said for you to come in.
It works as a short form of grammatically legal things like /qapong.
<matlh> jIjatlh/.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com