tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 29 17:22:08 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
In article <[email protected]>,
William H. Martin <[email protected]> writes
>On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:00:38 +0100 Matt Johnson
><[email protected]> wrote:
[ ?*{latlh He wIlo'moH DaH} ]
>> >Okay, first, this is controversial grammar. I'm comfortable with
>> >it, but some others object.
...
>> I think I see where the controversy lies. "wIlo'moH" + an explicit
>> direct object implies that there's another pronoun around there
>> somewhere.
...
>It is worse than that. What is the word {DaH} doing here? There
>is no grammatical justification for it being there, either as a
>noun or as an adverb. The sentence is fundamentally broken.
Owch. Point taken. DaH can't be subject, because the verb prefix already
says that the subject is "we". Eek.
>> Maybe {DaHvaD latlh He wIlo'moH} might parse better... this states
>> explicitly the indirect object (the benefactor of the action, in this
>> case the network/array), and removes the ambiguity of the second
>> unstated object in the original sentence. Now, the sentence is "We
>> caused the network to use a new cable."
>
>That works, if you accept the same controversial grammar that I
>accept. We have one canon example of this being used and many
>respectable Klingonists object to it and think it is a mistake.
:-| In which case, I'm not sure how to cast it at all.
Maybe it doesn't cast properly in one sentence, or we can't cast it
'explicitly'.
{latlh He poQ DaH. latlh He wIjom.} appears less controversial to me.
Thinking about the 'interesting' {DaHvaD latlh He wIlo'moH}... pulled
out TKD, page 38. TKD says that {HIQoymoH} can be interpreted both as
"Let me hear!" or "Let me hear (something)!" The first translation is
fine, the second seems 'odd' because the prefix seems to be relating to
subject and benefactor (indirect object) instead of direct object, and
we aren't told how to specify "something". As I understand it, the only
way we have to mark an indirect object is with -vaD, but this gets
hairy, as I think I understand.
If I'm still off at a tangent, tell me to stop thinking about it. :) I'm
just trying to get a grip on the finer points of grammar here. :)
>> >> qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? chIch De'wI'mey ghorlaH SaymoH'wI'mey.
>> >> reH Sengqu' SaymoH'wI'mey! :)
>> >
>> >tIHoH.
>>
>> {De' Hemaj Daghorta', DaH monglIj wIghor!}
>
>maj. Of course, that implies that they did it on purpose. Is
>that really necessary?
Well, would you call moving a server which is 3' square to clean
underneath and behind it 'accidental'? <G>
SovwIj ghurqu' mu'meylIj! HIQaHtaH! jIghoj 'e' vIneH!
--
qonwI'