tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 23 18:37:34 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghoj (was: Re: Klingon Poetry for College (2nd attempt)
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:00:30 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>
>On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:56:18 -0500 David Trimboli
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> jIjatlh:
>> > > Yes, yes, I'm not saying there aren't more accepted ways of doing this.
>> I
>> > > was specifically discussing the possibilities of "ditransitivity." The
>> > > above suggestion assumes they do occur.
>>
>> jatlh charghwI':
>> > wej mIwvam lo' matlh. chaq not lo'. latlh mIw lo'ta'. qatlh
>> > mIwvetlh Dapar?
>>
>>
>> moH.
>
>toH. mIw 'IH neH Dalaj. wejpuH. moH butlh 'e' DaHar'a'?
(English summary at the bottom)
moH mIw, HIja', 'ej taQ je. motlh, mu'tlheghvaD DIp chellu'DI', choHbe'
mu'tlhegh DIpmey Qu'. ta'taH ta'wI'; SIQtaH SIQwI', etc.:
"paq vInob jIH"
vInob jIH'e', paq'e' Hev vay'. DIp vIchel:
"HoDvaD paq vInob".
vInobtaH jIH'e'; paq'e' HevtaH vay'. DaH HevwI' wISov: Hev HoD.
"chutmo' HoDvaD paq vInob".
vInobtaH jIH'e'. paq'e' HevtaH vay'. HevtaH HoD'e'. DaH meq wISov: wanI'
qaSmoH chut'e'.
"DujDaq chutmo' HoDvaD paq vInob".
choH pagh DIp Qu'. Qu' chu' neH chellu'. etc...
'ach chutqoq Daqelbogh wIqelDI', jaS wanI':
"mang HoHmoH HoD"
HoH mang; HoH mang 'e' qaSmoH HoD: meq ghaH HoD'e'.
"DujDaq mang HoHmoH HoD"
HoHtaH mang'e'; meq ghaHtaH HoD'e'. DaH Daq vISov. choH pagh. 'ach...
"wo'vaD mang HoHmoH HoD"
chutqoq wIpabchugh, pay' choHqu' DIp Qu'. DaH HoHbe' mang! mang HoHlu'!
'ej DaH HoH wo''e'. Hujqu', 'ej tlhIngan pab, *logic* je bIvlaw'.
===
In English, briefly....
I think the most telling point is really the consistency and logic that is
broken by the "-vaD" rule. Normally, if you add a noun to a sentence, the
roles of the other nouns don't change. In the "paq vInob jIH" example
above, as each noun is added, *I* remain the giver, no matter what, and the
book remains the thing that is given, no matter what. I can add a
recipient, a reason, a location, a source... but each time, the nouns
already there don't change their basic roles. But in the "mang HoHmoH HoD"
example Krankor uses, according to the "-vaD" rule (or
demoted-subject-demotion rule?), adding the "-vaD" noun to the sentence
suddenly drastically changes the role of the object. No longer is the
soldier the one doing the killing, now he is the one being killed! And his
role as killer is usurped by the newcoming noun. No longer does "HoHmoH"
mean "SUBJECT causes OBJECT to kill," it now means "SUBJECT causes OBJECT
to be killed by INDIRECT OBJECT" (or "SUBJECT causes INDIRECT OBJECT to
kill OBJECT"). That's a pretty radical change, unlike anything logic or
Klingon grammar would suggest. And Krankor points out that this is an
isolated example. His analysis of what is going on in this example doesn't
have to be right (though it is interesting, and might for all we know be
right), but he shows that there are enough *possible* other ways to look at
it that it hardly constitutes evidence for a very unexpected and
counter-logical rule.
~mark