tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 11 18:59:46 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Style and numbers; Was KLBC: Noun Suffixes with Numbers
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Style and numbers; Was KLBC: Noun Suffixes with Numbers
- Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:47:20 -0500
- Organization: Microsoft Corporation
- References: <[email protected]>
jatlh DujHoD:
> > Sa' 1: cha' yuQmey mangghommey vIghaj.
> > Sa' 2: wejDaq mangghommey vIghaj jIH'e'.
jatlh charghwI':
> Your second example is better, though you apparently goofed on
> the suffix for {yuQ}. Also, note that adding an explicit {jIH}
> already indicates emphasis on the subject. Adding {-'e'} to that
> really is overkill.
Adding {-'e'} does more than just add emphasis. It indicates that the noun
is the topic of the sentence. I agree that {-'e'} doesn't belong on the
{jIH} here, but not for reasons of overkill.
This is what I believe is meant to be conveyed, in English:
General 1: I have armies on two planets.
General 2: *I* have armies on *THREE* planets!
Both "I" and "three" are emphasized, and rightly so. But the TOPIC of the
sentence is the fact that I have three planets, instead of just two.
However, Klingon has no grammatical tool to topicalize the number in this
case. (Neither does English, as far as I can think of off the top of my
head!) It would be clear in speech; your voice would indicate the emphasis
and topic you're looking for.
jatlh charghwI':
> I'd prefer to say:
>
> Sa' 1: cha' yuQDaq mangghommey vIghaj.
> Sa' 2: wej yuQDaq manggommey vIghaj jIH.
And *I'd* prefer to say:
Sa' wa': cha' yuQDaq mangghommey vIghaj.
Sa' cha': *wej* yuQDaq mangghommey vIghaj jIH.
> Note that this is as much a matter of style as acceptable
> grammar. Certainly, omitting the noun {yuQ} works grammatically,
> but we are talking about PLANETS here. Part of the boast is that
> these locations are PLANETS and not just some unmentioned
> entities.
I disagree. We are talking about is three instead of two, not planets.
> Additionally, I'm not completely certain that there are any
> canon examples of numbers (which are chuvmey, after all, even
> if they are being used as nouns) have taken noun suffixes in
> canon. I have vague memories of voragh coming up with an
> example, but it is early yet and sleep is a luxury I haven't had
> much of lately.
Well, there was at least one time when Okrand wrote {qep'a' wejDIchDaq}
(usually annoted as a letter to Okrand to me a few years ago, though
ironically I no longer have a copy of the letter - however, I consider this
to be written by Okrand directly, not explained to him by Maltz). Of
course, this may be because {qep'a' wejDIch} can be considered to be a name.
SuStel
Stardate 99945.3