tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 15:27:43 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: RE: KLBC vuDlIjvaD qatlhob

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:48:57 -0500 (EST) R'nice of Telgar 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm gonna make the rare move of responding to this one in English.  Just
> a couple Grammarian-type comments beyond what the BG said.
> 
> >> Thanks about the -taH following 'e',  as well. 
> >> Hadn't heard of that one.
> >
> >It's often called the "obscure rule". It's a single sentence in the middle
> >of the sentence as object (6.2.5) section of TKD on page 66. If you really
> >want to specify an aspect, you can put it on the *first* verb; the second
> >verb takes on the aspect of the first.
> 
> This is a rule that you need to know about-- it is very obscure-- but not
> lose too much sleep over.  It is routinely overlooked or outright violated.
> The problem is that the rule is not only obscure, but it also *sucks*.  It's
> fine as long as you want the same aspect on both verbs, which is all that
> the passage in TKD addresses.  We're left hanging for what to do about cases
> where the aspect is NOT the same.  Example:  "I still remember that you
> betrayed me."  Decomposing to two sentences, we get:  "You betrayed me.  I
> continue to remember that."  The betrayal is completed, the remembering is
> continuous-- two different aspects.  The obvious translation is:
> 
> *chomaghpu' 'e' vIqawtaH.	"I still remember that you betrayed me."
> 
> *Technically*, according to the strict letter of the law, this is
> ungrammatical.  But hardly anyone will bat an eyelash at it.  Including
> me.

While I agree completely and think the rule must have been 
created in order to cover one of those backfit messes from the 
third movie, I do see a simple way around it that is not TOO 
offensive:

chomaghpu' 'e vIqaw. jIqawtaH.
 
> >>>> *teqSIS*Daq ghommaj. 
> > 
> >>> This is a sentence without a verb. Basically, it 
> >>> just says "Our group in Texas.". You want 
> >>> <teqSISDaq 'oHtaH ghommaj'e'>.
> >
> >> I DID leave out the pronoun 'oH I had intended. I think 
> >> that a state of being verb is implied in that pronoun, 
> >> isn't it? Similar in construction to tlhIngan jIH ?
> >
> >HIja'.
> > 
> 
> That's not really the right way to think about it.  There is no *implied*
> state-of-being verb.  There is a very *explicit* to-be verb. 

Again, I agree completely. Meanwhile, I want to put in a small 
plug for reconsidering the use of "to be" when it can easily be 
replaced. This is a matter of style and not of grammatical 
necessity. The point of it is that in English, we use "to be" a 
LOT more than it is likely used in Klingon. In this case, it 
makes perfect sense to say {teqSISDaq maghom.}

I agree that it is important that when "to be" is what you 
really want, you need to understand that pronouns act as verbs 
and not as nouns as they function as the verb "to be", as is 
well explained here. Perhaps instead of being a "former BG" I 
should seek to be a stylistician?

I'm definitely not against the use of "to be". I just feel like 
it is something that every time you reach for it, you should 
pause just long enough to make sure it is the right tool instead 
of merely the familiar tool, because it is familiar to you 
mostly because of your native English tongue, not because that 
the Klingon language and its canon encourages you to think of it 
first.

My first conversation with Okrand was quite brief, though he was 
quite clear that one of the original design intents of the 
language was to not have the verb "to be" at all. That's how the 
adjectival verbs got to be the way they are. The pronoun idea 
came later, though the focus was still to be less dependent upon 
it than we are in English. The language was simply more 
interesting that way, and better fit the nature of the people 
speaking.

They want to see things HAPPEN. So, your group IS in Texas. 
Hmmm. What does your group DO in Texas? Does it just BE in 
Texas. Or does it MEET in Texas.

In a sentence like {tlhIngan jIH}, I AM a Klingon. There really 
isn't any other verb that will do. That is definitely good use 
of the verb "to be" expressed through a pronoun. "My group is in 
Texas," is more of a target for rethinking. Even {teqSISDaq 
ghomwIj tu'lu'} is an improvement.

> It is the
> pronoun itself.  The pronoun is very much acting as the verb of to-be.
> Thus, tlhIngan jIH does NOT mean:  "I [am] [a] Klingon", it means
> "I-am [a] Klingon".  The jIH in this instance means "I am".  The proof
> of this is that the pronoun may (and often does) take *verb* suffixes
> in such sentences.  All of these are legal:
> 
> tlhIngan maHbej			"We are definitely Klingons!"
> tlhIngan tlhIHbe''a'?		"Aren't you all Klingons?"
> naDev chaHqangbe'taH		"They're unwilling to continue to be here."
> SuvwI' ghaHchugh vaj targh puqloD jIHba'
> 				"If he's a warrior, then I'm obviously
> 					a son-of-a-targ!"
> 
> Mind you, Klingon probably doesn't use the verb of to-be as much as
> English does, and I would probably redo that third one as something like
> naDev ratlhqangbe' chaH, but it's still legal as originally formulated.

Exactly. I definitely do not mean to imply that overuse of "to 
be" is invalid. It is simply, well, boring. Dull. Nothing is 
happening. Nobody is meeting. They just are being. Nothing is 
being discovered. Things are just being. Yuck.
 
> When the pronoun-as-verb-of-to-be requires an explicit subject, it follows
> the verb, just like in all Klingon grammar.  The only thing special is
> you have to tack an -'e' on the subject.   Thus:
> 
> qoH chaH be'pu'vetlh'e'		"Those women are fools."

mIgh qech vIjatlh 'e' vImev.
 
> The best way to think of the -'e' is just as syntactic noise.  It really
> carries no semantic meaning, you just have to include it because that's
> the rule.  Otherwise, we have normal O-V-S; structurally identical to, say:
> 
> qoH rur be'pu'vetlh		"Those women resemble fools."

Sounds like you've been having experiences with the other gender 
similar to my own, HoDwI'.
 
> Except, of course, for the -'e'.
> 
> 		--Captain Krankor, Grammarian

charghwI'

Back to archive top level