tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 08 08:43:52 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: prefix trick = bad idea
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: prefix trick = bad idea
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:42:38 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:21:10 EST [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 11/7/1999 4:00:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > tIqwIj Sa'angnIS "I must show you [plural] my heart"
> > (tIqwIj "my heart," Sa'angnIS "I must show you [plural] it")
> >
> >
> this trick leaves the real direct object hanging by itself with no link to
> the verb in the form of a prefix. indirect objects with no direct object can
> be handled this way with no loss of clarity, but even so, it looks to me like
> a major confusion in an area where there is already a lot of confusion.
> elegant simplicity has become tangled mess.
If I say this in Klingon, it won't help you, so I must briefly
break my intent to write only in Klingon. ghu'vam vIpay.
Most languages have a lot of redundency built in. Klingon has
less of this. As an example, the plural suffix is often
unnecessary, yet plurality is clear because of a verb prefix
or some other context: tlhIngan maH. We know this means, "We are
Klingons." It does not mean, "We are a Klingon."
One of the few redundencies in the language is the agreement
between the verb prefix and the direct object. If you see this
redundency broken because the prefix does not agree with the
obvious direct object, then the prefix clearly indicates the
indirect object. tajvetlh HInob.
It is not a tangled mess. It is perfect order expressed in a
concise form.
> lay'tel SIvten
charghwI'