tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 02 13:26:05 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: long weekend with MO

According to Steven Boozer:
> 
> SuStel:
> >According to what DloraH has said, {SIS} DOES need a subject, and that the
> >subject to any Klingon who's taken elementary science classes.  Just because
> >you can elide the subject (something which most everyone thought to be true,
> >anyway) doesn't mean that the subject is a sort of "default" subject.  It
> >may even be that Klingons never do state the subject, but it seems like
> >there still is one.  What exactly is it?
>  
> ghunchu'wI':
> : I can live happily with the definite but unstated subject, now that I know
> : what its semantic role is.
> 
> We may all be picking at minutiae here (what else is new?), but saying
> there's a "definite but unstated subject" implies it is known to everyone,
> just that Klingons choose never to mention it. But, as SuStel asks, what
> exactly is it?  What's the subject, for that matter, in "It's raining" or
> "Pluit" or "Il pluie" or "Es regnet"?  Grammatically, the subject is "it"
> (stated or not), but what is it's antecedant?  Although we can freely add
> objects in English (it's raining cats and dogs, it's raining fire, etc.), we
> can't add definite subjects.  In fact, if you were to actually state one
> ("The sky/air/atmosphere is raining") people would wonder what the hell you
> were trying to say.  Does it really matter as long as you're understood?

Ask your average kid and they'll probably tell you that clouds
rain or the sky rains. Why do they understand something you
seem to have a problem with?

> I wonder how many other verbs do this in Klingon.  We know of {Do'Ha'} "It
> is unfortunate"

Well, you seem to have made that up. On the cover page of TKD,
the example is translated "That is unfortunate." That is
apparently what I was remembering when I tried to remember the
line from ST3, and I'm still not sure that's not the real
subtitle. Where did you get "It is unfortunate."?

> and maybe {wejpuH} "(It's) Charming!"  

Look again. {wejpuH} is not a verb.

> Surely {ped} "snow"
> works the same way as {SIS}, and just possibly {jev} "storm" (if this
> doesn't actually refer to military assault).  Is it usual to elide the
> "subject" with other verbs in contexts that describe your surroundings:
> {paS} "It's late", {Hurgh} "It's dark", {bIr} "It's cold", {va, tujqu'}
> "What a scorcher!", etc.?  It certainly is simple and elegant.

So, why are you trying to take clear examples of clipped
Klingon and state that they are using a third person singular
null prefix? TKD describes clipped grammar. It makes no mention
of an indefinite "it". Why create a new explanation for
something an old grammatical rule explains quite well?

> 'Tis a pity Klingons don't make small talk, or we'd have more examples.

wejpuH. Not {bIwejpuH.} Just {wejpuH.}

> Voragh

charghwI'

Back to archive top level