tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 08:22:34 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: And then...? And then...? (And then along came Jones...) - For MO


tagha'!  mu' {tagha'} wIghoj!  Dun jajvam!

--Holtej 'utlh

tlhIngan Hol mailing list FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TPO [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 7:13 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: And then...? And then...? (And then along came 
> Jones...) -
> For MO
> 
> 
> The follow is from Marc Okrand from the Klingon newsgroup
> 
> ************************************************************
> 
> 
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote in message
> <[email protected]>...
> 
> 
> >We now have {ghIq}, meaning "then" in the sense of
> >"subsequently..."  That is, after the last thing happened,
> >this happened; emphasizing the sequential aspect of the
> >narrative.  But having that, what about another kind of
> >"then"?  Something like a temporal analogue to {pa'}:
> >"then" in the sense of "at that time."  We have something
> >like this with {-DI'}, but that requires a verb or clause
> >which isn't always necessarily available or convenient.
> >Maybe there's something idiomatic with {-DI'}?  Or an
> >adverb?
> 
> 
> Yes and yes.  There is an adverbial which means "then" in
> the sense of "at that time" (as opposed to "subsequently").
> And there is also an idiom meaning something like "by that
> time."
> 
> The adverbial is (ngugh}.  It is used mainly to emphasize
> that a particular event occurred at the same time as
> something else, though {ngugh} doesn't indicate what that
> time is.  Something else in the discussion makes that
> clear.  {ngugh} does not mean "at some (vague) time in the
> past" or "at some (unknown) time in the future."
> 
> For example:
> 
> (1) vagh SanID ben buDbe' wamwI'pu'.  ngugh Ho'Du'chaj lo'
> chaH, 'ach DaH tajmey lo'.
> 
> "5,000 years ago, hunters were not lazy.  Then (at that
> time) they used their teeth, but now they use knives."
> 
> ({vagh SanID} "5,000," {ben} "years ago," {buD} "be lazy,"
> {-be'} "not," {wamwI'pu'} "hunters"; {ngugh} "then,"
> {Ho'Du'chaj} "their teeth", {chaH} "they," {'ach} "but,"
> {DaH} "now," {tajmey} "knives," {lo'} "they use")
> 
> 
> (2) DungluQ tIHIv.  ngugh Qongbe' chaH.
> 
> "Attack them at noon!  They won't be sleeping then."  (or:
> "Attack them at noon.  They're not sleeping then.")
> 
> ({DungluQ} "noon," {tIHIv} "attack them! [imperative]";
> {ngugh} "then," {Qong} "they sleep," {-be'} "not," {chaH}
> "they")
> 
> Note that in each case {ngugh} "then" refers to a time
> specified earlier in the discussion (here, "5,000 years
> ago" and "noon").  In the second example, the adverbial
> {ngugh} could be left out, and the basic meaning could
> still be the same ("Attack them at noon! They won't be
> sleeping.")  With {ngugh}, however, the speaker is
> emphasizing the time element.  The first example also could
> be recast without {ngugh} (for example, the second sentence
> could be two: {Ho'Du'chaj lo' chaH. DaH tajmey lo'.}  "They
> used their teeth.  Now they use knives.").  With {ngugh},
> however, the contrast between "then" and "now" is
> highlighted.
> 
> The time reference need not occur in the immediately
> preceding sentence or clause (as it does in the examples
> above); it could be earlier in the discourse.
> 
> Since {ngugh} points to or refers back to a previously
> established time reference, if that time reference is not
> clear (or is missing), an utterance containing {ngugh}
> would not make much sense.  If someone asks "When?" after
> hearing a sentence containing {ngugh}, unless the question
> resulted from inattentiveness, {ngugh} was probably used
> inappropriately.
> 
> In addition to {ngugh}, there is an idiomatic expression
> involving the suffix {-DI'} "when, as soon as" used to mean
> "by that time, by the time that [something] occurred (or
> will occur)."  The event that has occurred (or will occur)
> is typically expressed in the immediately preceding
> sentence or clause, though it could have been uttered
> earlier.
> 
> The idiom is found in two forms.  The shorter (and more
> frequently heard) version is the single word {pumDI'} "when
> it falls" ({pum} "fall" [that is, "fall down" or "fall off
> of something"], {-DI'} "when").  The longer version
> consists of {pumDI'} followed by a subject noun specifying
> what falls.  The most common noun heard is {'etlh} "sword,
> blade" (thus: {pumDI' 'etlh}, literally "when the blade
> falls").  Presumably the expression originally referred to
> a fight between two combatants wielding bladed weapons.
> The time at which one of them dropped the weapon and was
> thus defeated (or was as good as defeated) was a
> significant moment.
> 
> Some speakers, however, are rather creative and use nouns
> other than {'etlh}.  For example: {pumDI' DaS} "when the
> boot falls," {pumDI' 'obmaQ} "when the ax falls," {pumDI'
> nagh} "when the stone falls," {pumDI' rutlh} "when the
> wheel falls."  There seems to be no restriction on what
> noun may be used here, as long as it is something that
> could possibly fall.  (Thus {pumDI' QoQ} "when the music
> falls" would not be used.)
> 
> Choosing one noun or another to use in the idiomatic phrase
> is a form of word play.  Depending on the topic being
> discussed, the noun could add a touch of irony or even
> humor.  In any event, the choice of noun does not change
> the idiomatic meaning of the phrase. {pumDI' X}, where X is
> the subject noun, is used to mean "by then, by that time."
> 
> The idiom might be used when talking about a feast that had
> taken place a few nights ago. If a guest arrived late --
> after the eating had already begun -- one might say
> something like:
> 
> 
>     tagha' pawpu' meb 'ach pumDI' Heghpu' qagh.
> 
> or:
> 
>     tagha' pawpu' meb 'ach pumDI' 'etlh Heghpu' qagh.
> 
> 
> "The guest finally arrived, but by then the gagh had died."
> 
> ({tagha'} "finally, at last," {pawpu'} "he/she has
> arrived," {meb} "guest," {'ach} "but," {pumDI' ('etlh)} "by
> then," {Heghpu'} "it has died," {qagh} "gagh")
> 
> 
> Unlike subordinate clauses in general, {pumDI' X}, when
> used
> idiomatically, always precedes the main clause ({Heghpu'
> qagh} in the example above).  When idiomatic usage is not
> involved, subordinate clauses may either precede or follow
> the main clause.
>

Back to archive top level