tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 22 18:23:27 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon Poetry for College (2nd attempt)
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 16:21:49 -0500
>Organization: Microsoft Corporation
>
>> > tIghmaj puqpu' DIghojnISmoH
>
>jatlh charghwI':
>> puqpu'vaD tIghmaj DIghojnISmoH. A lot of people don't like
>> this construction, but the simple truth is, this is the
>> only way Okrand has ever shown us to handle putting {-moH}
>> on a verb that already has a direct object. Your method
>> throws two nouns in the direct object position with no
>> explanation as to which one is the direct object and what
>> is the other one doing in the sentence?
>>
>> You do use the {XvaD Y ZmoH} construction later in your
>> poem.
>
>
>I'm one of those who don't like it, and for a change I'm in agreement with
>Krankor. I really liked his "From the Grammarian's Desk" column in HolQeD
>Vol.8 No.2 where he spends a great deal of discussion considering this
>problem.
Before that HolQeD came out, Lawrence told me there was going to be a
really controversial article from Krankor in it. So the next time I saw
Krankor I told him (jokingly), "I totally disagree with your article. I
haven't seen it and don't know what it's about, but I thought I'd disagree
now and avoid the rush." He said he was actually hoping I of all people
would like what he had to say.
And you know, I did and do. There were some minor points I think I saw a
little differently, but I really liked his article and I liked his
reminding us to use our heads a little and not just parrot without
thinking. Krankor and I have had quite a few differences over Klingon over
the years (though when I try to think of them they seem fewer and fewer.
Fewer than the differences I've had with others), but I wouldn't trade them
for anything. I've said this before. Krankor doesn't have all that much
formal linguistics training (actually, most of mine is self-taught), and
even in terms of learning other languages his experience is a little
limited. And in his case, he makes that an *advantage*. Because of his
background, his perspectives tend to be fresh and intuitive, and unhampered
by too much conventionalism. Owing to his linguistic talent, they also
tend not to be too wacky or English-based. Don't mess with Krankor. Or
rather, mess with him, and be prepared to learn something from the
experience. He's not always right, but he's usually worth listening to.
I'm getting afield here. But I really did like his analysis of -moH and
ditransitivity. I agree with SuStel there.
~mark