tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 05 15:17:15 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Imperative prefixes

jatlh "Nelson Lamoureux":

>I was doing new tables for prefixes and suffixes when I realized that there
>are no 1st person plural subject imperative prefix in tlhingan Hol. I find
>this surprising. I'm not exactly sure about english, but I can assure you
>it's very present in french (and AFAIK in a number of other languages to).
>It seems this was deliberately done by MO (TKD 41.2), but why?

>For example, suppose I want to say:

>    1.    (Lets go) Capture this guy! (meaning me and others will do the
>        capture, though I'm not sure it can be told, it sounds strange).
>
>In french I would say:
>
>    2.    Capturons ce gars ("capturons": to capture, 1st pers. plur.
>        imperative present).

jatlh "mark":

>Option 3:  What I like and generally preferred by grammarians:  just say
>what you mean!  "maja'chuq!":  we will talk.  "qama' wIjon" we go catch the
>prisoner.  Context will have to provide the exhortative meaning, and it
>just about always does.  I suppose you could also try "maja'chuqnIS", but
>that's not quite the same thing.

I agree; that does seem to be a good choice. But it doesn't quite convey the 
imperative notion like a real imperative would. You're basically just using 
the Klingon equivalent of the future tense. Couldn't you say something like:

wIjon 'e' vIra'   I order that we capture him/her.
wIjon 'e' vIchup   I recommend that we capture him/her.

BTW, tlhIngan Hol taghwI'na' jIH. vaj peQeH lughbe'chugh tlhIngan Hol pabwIj.


- DujHoD

Back to archive top level