tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 06 17:24:01 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: adverb suffixes???

>From: "William H. Martin" <>
>Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:54:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>On Sun, 5 Dec 1999 09:26:39 EST wrote:
>> jatlh Clayton:
>> >qenba' jImej.
>> ghel mark:
>> >What does this mean that {qen jImejba'} doesn't?
>> qenba' jImej. I fled, and that fleeing was obviously recent.
>> qen jImejba'. Recently, I obviously fled.
>> In English, they would probably both be translated as "I obviously fled 
>> recently," but there is a difference, qar'a'?
>In English, adverbs can modify adverbs, whereas in Klingon, 
>except for rovers, suffixes and adverbials are fixed in position 
>and apply to the verb more than to one another. In English, the 
>difference you are looking for would be expressed:
>I obviously recently fled.
>I recently obviously fled.

Even though English allows for this ordering to matter, I'd have to say
that in this case, (a) the difference is very subtle and (b) English
adverb-order is free enough that it's still quite possible that someone
could use one ordering and mean the meaning associated with the other.
This is not always the case with the examples you're talking about though,
I admit.

>> jatlh Clayton:
>> >QItqu' yIt.
>> jang mark:
>> >Emphasizing the adverbs does make a certain amount of sense; {QIt yItqu'}
>> >doesn't seem to have quite the same meaning as what you have above.  But we
>> >have no evidence that it can be done in Klingon.
>> Personally, I like the use of rovers on adverbs...but I won't use them unless 
>> such usage becomes canonical.

jIQochbe' je jIH.


Back to archive top level