tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 05 18:22:38 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Imperative prefixes
- From: [email protected] (Christiane Scharf)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Imperative prefixes
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:48:19 +0200
jatlh ~mark:
>>Date: Thu, 05 Aug 99 20:28:18 EST
>>Errors-To: [email protected]
>>Originator: [email protected]
>>From: "Nelson Lamoureux" <[email protected]>
>>
>>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 4.1.2), but why?
[...]
>Ah, so what about Klingon? Obviously we don't have a prefix for it, and I
>really doubt we'll get one at this point (c'mon a new verb PREFIX? That
>we've spent all this time not knowing about?) There's been some discussion
>on this before, in other contexts, and I have my favorite answers...
>
>Option 1: Basically translate the English idiom. Almost certainly a lousy
>idea; it rarely works (though the Welsh idiom is approximately the same as
>the English; one very plikely borrowed from the other). You could try
>something like "qama' wIjon 'e' yIchaw'" or something like that. But it
>doesn't sound the least bit co-exhortive to me: it's definitely a request
>for permission, so far as I can tell. It's also mightily long-winded.
Ouch. This doesn't sound very Klingon at all. It's much too submissive. Your
feeling seems right. "Let's capture the prisoner!" is rather a command than
a humble request for permission.
>
>Option 2: A lot of people have used -jaj for this purpose. In fact, the
>discussions touching on this problem before have generally been people
>(like me) discouraging the use of -jaj for this purpose. Strangely, we
>even have canon for this, and discouraged canon: recall the doomed Terran
>in whichever tape it was saying "maja'chuqjaj" for "let's talk." I don't
>buy it. -jaj is an expression of hope or wish, not a request or an order
>or a suggestion. "qama' wIjonjaj" sounds like "May it be so that we
>capture the prisoner." Not what we're after.
Right. Not what we're after.
>
>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.
>
>So, I know I said MUCH more than I should have. But that's my answer:
>Just use the first person and have done with it.
Also my first choice. It's straightforward. It won't accept any objections.
You can also add {Ha'} to get the inviting/ordering part. {Ha', qama'
wIjon.}
>~mark
>
HovqIj