tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 09 08:00:12 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: pab chu'

On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:07:28 -0400 Terrence Donnelly 
<> wrote:

> peqIm.  chaq tlhIHvaD Daj De'vam.  Hu' puS *website*wIjDaq navmey
> chu' vIlI'.  tlhIngan pab chu' luDel navmeyvam.  vay' vIDeltaHvIS
> jImujchugh qoj pab vIDel 'e' vIlIjchugh, vaj tuja'.
> SKI: I recently posted some new pages to my Website containing a listing
> of all the grammar addenda and corrections post-TKD that I could find.
> You may find it interesting.  Let me know if I said something wrong or
> forgot your favorite bit.
> Quv:
> -- ter'eS 

Most of this is very good and useful. Please don't misinterpret 
the following as disrespectful of the good work you've done here.

In your section on nouns, you say:

3.3.5 Syntactic markers 

1.-Daq and -vo' are strictly locative; they refer only to motion 
towards/location at, or motion away from a place. They can't be 
used in other situations which in English use "to", "in" or 
"from" (eg. "I translate from English to Klingon"; you can't use 
-Daq for "to" or -vo' for "from"). [HQ v8n1p7]

Your point seems to be the restrictive sense, and that is 
correct, but the wording implies that {-Daq} always implies 
motion. It doesn't. {pa'wIjDaq jIHtaH} does not imply any 
motion. {tachDaq qaleghpu'} does not imply motion.

3.It seems that a noun with a Type 5 suffix can modify a single 
noun (as opposed to whole sentences), eg. ghe''orDaq luSpet "a 
black hole in the Netherworld". [PK]

It would be good to post the entire quote, since you have linked 
what might not have actually been linked. You interpret this as 
"a black hole in the Netherworld", when the sentence might 
actually have meant, "In the Netherworld, your face resembles a 
black hole." Don't presume to understand the grammar of a 
fossilized sentence which is used in ritualistic conversation. 
As you interpret this, it breaks the stated grammatical rule 
that the first noun of a noun-noun possessive construction can't 
have a Type 5 noun suffix.

Nouns showing various locations, when used with pronouns, follow 
the pronoun, and the pronoun suffixes are not used, eg. jIH 
retlhDaq "alongside me", not *retlhwIjDaq [KGT, p. 24] 

I think that what you are saying is correct, but unclear. Better 
would be "In the special case of nouns which represent 
prepositional concepts, like {retlh, Dung, bIng}, etc. the 
genetive is indicated by use of pronouns in a noun-noun 
construction and not by possessive (Type 4) noun suffixes."

4.2.7. Aspect 

The perfective suffixes -pu'/-ta' do not indicate past tense. 
Klingon has no tenses. They indicate action completed from the 
point of view of the rest of the discourse. The point of view 
may be present, past or future time. [CK; HQ v2n1p10; HQ 

This is correct and well stated, though I'd suggest replacing 
"point of view" with "time stamp" or "time context", since 
"point of view" is as often used to refer to spacial perspective 
as time context.

4.4 Adjectives

1.When a noun has more than one adjective, one of the following 
forms is used: SuD Dargh 'ej wov or SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh 
[KGT p.82]

I don't have KGT with me, but I thought this was a description 
of dealing with COLORS, not a generalization about pairs of 
adjectives in general. It might be worth double-checking this to 
make sure you are not overgeneralizing here.

  6.2.1. Compound sentences 

1.The conjunction 'ej merely indicates the simultaneous 
occurence of two events; there is no time sequence implied, eg. 
mabom 'ej matlhutlh "We sing and we drink", not *"We sing and 
then drink" [MSN, 3/20/98]

I'm relatively certain that there is no more presumption of 
simultenaity than there is of sequentiality. The conjunction 
simply gives you no indication of the relative timing of the two 
events. Only context can convey this.

2.You may be able to use any Type 5 suffix to mark the head noun 
of a relative phrase: meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH "Only a 
fool fights in a burning house". [TKW, p.111; S99]

The rule seems to be that the Head noun of the relative -bogh 
verb must be the subject or object of the relative verb (MO: "I 
couldn't make the -bogh thing work for me with anything other 
than subject or object" [HQ v4n2p5]), but that the Head noun can 
take any Type 5 noun suffix in relation to the main verb of the 
sentence. When the Head noun is the subject or object of the 
main verb, too, or when it is the first element in a N-N 
construction, it can take -'e'. When it has some other 
relationship with the main verb, it can take the appropriate 
Type 5 Noun suffix. (This is still controversial [KLI: W. 
Martin, 1/27/99, Re: qID; KLI: A. Anderson, 1/29/99, Re: qID]

Note that in the canon example you provide, {-Daq} does not MARK 
the head noun. There is only one possible candidate for head 
noun. It simply adds the locative function to the entire 
relative clause. This is true in both of the canon examples we 
have of {-Daq} used on head nouns of relative clauses.

There is no indication in canon that any Type 5 noun suffix 
other than {'e'} is ever used to mark the head noun. There is 
also no indication that you can use any Type 5 suffix at all for 
any reason on the first noun of a noun-noun construction, 
contrary to your commentary. All this is highly speculative and 
probably doesn't deserve to be presented alongside your many 
other stronger examples of updated understanding of the grammar.

 6.2.4. Purpose clauses 

1.Verbs with -meH seem able to modify nouns as well as verbs, 
eg. pe'meH taj "cutting knife". [KGT, p.63]

They do not merely "seem able". They ARE able, and this is not 
new grammar. Read 6.2.4 in TKD, end of first paragraph: "The 
purpose clause always preceeds the NOUN or verb whose purpose it 
is describing." [My emphasis.]

2.Such verbs seem able to take actual subjects and/or objects 
[HQ v7n3p6]

Again, look at 6.2.4. The examples in TKD clearly show this.

3.Such verbs can be used to express Sentences as Subjects, eg. 
nargh qaSuchmeH 'eb "the opportunity to visit you has passed". 
[HQ v7n2p14]

I find this analysis very odd. This is not a sentence as 
subject. This is a noun as subject and the noun is modified by 
the purpose clause. The noun {'eb} is not merely representing 
the clause "in order that I visit you". It is a noun. Leave out 
the {-meH} clause and the sentence still makes sense. Leave out 
the first sentence in a Sentence As Object example and the 
sentence loses all meaning.

I hope this helps.

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level