tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 16 13:30:15 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: baj (v)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: baj (v)
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:29:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:55:13 +-300 Carleton Copeland
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Canon:
> > TWK p. 125
> > yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'
> > Survival must be earned.
>
>
> motlhbe' mu'tlheghvam pab 'e' vIparHa'qu' 'ach cha'logh jImIS:
>
> 1) qen muja' charghwI': "the use of {-lu'} on the second verb of a
> Sentence-As-Object construction is HIGHLY controversial. The pronoun {net}
> is preferred here." qar'a'?
~mark dealt with 1) as well as I did, but I think he missed your
problem with 2):
> 2) *yIntaHghach* I could deal with, but *yInlu'taH*?! Would charghwI' or
> any of the other sensei-pu' do a *pab poj* on this one?
I suspect you may be confused in a way very similar to the way I
was confused the first time I saw {-lu'} on an intransitive
verb. If you look at {-lu'} as reversing the role of the prefix
so that the third person implied object is actually the
indefinite subject, while the implied subject is actually the
object, like I did, then things get weird:
vIleghlu'.
"I am seen. One sees me."
This only makes sense because {vI-} implies that the first
person singular is the SUBJECT and third person singular is the
OBJECT. Meanwhile, first person singular is the DIRECT OBJECT
and third person singular is the indefinite SUBJECT.
It is hard enough to begin to understand this, but now add this
to a sentence like:
quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'? "Is this seat taken?"
This looks really weird. I had a HUGE fight with Krankor about
this early in my use of the language, and I was absolutely
positive that this was gibberish. No pronoun implies the absence
of a subject, so you can't reverse the roles of the subject and
object of the prefix on an intransitive verb because there is
no direct object for such a verb, so that null direct object
can't become the subject. It is a paradox. It can't possibly
work.
That's when Krankor pointed out the example in TKD among the
"Useful Phrases". I went through denial, anger, depression and
then finally acceptance.
You can use {-lu'} on intransitive verbs. It doesn't really jive
with the interaction of {-lu'} and the verb prefix on transitive
verbs, but then, so what? Language doesn't always have to jive.
Sometimes the rules simply have exceptions. So, both {ba'lu'}
and {yInlu'} are valid. Deal with it.
> HImISHa'moH!
'e' vInID. jIQap'a'?
> qa'ral
charghwI'