tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 18 22:51:14 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day (bo-)



[...conjugating the verbs, as in (Sov = knows)...]

ja'pu' HomDoq:
> I actually like this. It helps prevent people from thinking they
> can use un-prefixed verb forms like they can use infinitives in English.

jIja':
> How does it do that?  I don't understand what you mean.

ja'qa' HomDoq:
>because it is different in form from the infinitive, thus stressing the fact
>that it is a conjugated verb form.

But it is *not* a conjugated verb form.  It is a bare verb with no prefix.

>There are no infinitives in Klingon

Depending on exactly how you intend the word "infinitive", that's not
exactly true.  An infinitive in English is a verb form that functions as a
noun or noun substitute (but still admits modification as a verb), as "to
exercise" in the sentence "To exercise excessively makes one tired."  The
Klingon suffix {-ghach} might be seen as forming an infinitive.  (I tend to
think of it more as a gerund form, actually.)

>except for the case of {-meH}, I don't see why the verb in {-wI'}- and
>{-ghach}-nouns has to be seen as "unprefixed".

They don't necessarily *have* to be unprefixed, but there is certainly a
distinction in my mind between the {nobpu'ghach} ideas of "having given"
and "he having given".  Only the first interpretation, without a prefix,
lends itself to general use.  Interpreting it as having a null prefix works
in relatively few situations, and I don't think there are any cases where
it *must* be seen as having the null prefix in order to make sense.

Verbs with {-meH} certainly get used with no prefix whatsoever at times.

>In order to be able to carry
>{-wI'} the verb has to have a 3rd person sg subject.

I disagree.  The verb should have *no* subject; the noun created by {-wI'}
becomes the subject, and can certainly be plural.

>But is {luHoHwI'} really ungrammatical? Or {retIchlI'ghach}?

There's perhaps a distinction between ungrammatical and nonsensical, and
there's definitely a blurry area between sense and nonsense.  Perhaps
{luHoHwI'} follows the rules, but if so, I think it follows them into
places nobody would want to go except for poetic effect.

>> ...Even limiting the discussion to present tense, "knows"
>> occurs only with a singular third person subject.  The TKD-compliant "know"
>> is found when translating every other combination of number and person.
>>
>but for all the possible (present tense) meanings of {HoH}, "kills"
>occurs in three out of five.

I don't understand how you're counting.  There are six different
person/number combinations for the subject (first/second/third person,
singular/plural).  There are thirty-four different representable
combinations of subject and object, with twenty-four distinct prefixes
including the null prefix.

{0/mu-/nu-/Du-/lI-} He-she-it kills [()/him-her-it/them/me/us/you/y'all].

That's one if you count subjects, or five if you count prefixes.

{jI-/vI-/qa-/Sa-} I kill [()/him-her-it/them/you/y'all].
{ma-/wI-/DI-/pI-/re-} We kill [()/him-her-it/them/you/y'all].
{bI-/Da-/cho-/ju-} You kill [()/him-her-it/them/me/us].
{Su-/bo-/tu-/che-} Y'all kill [()/him-her-it/them/me/us].
{lu-/mu-/nu-/nI-/lI-} They kill [him-her-it/me/us/you/y'all]
{0} They kill [()/them].

That's five if you count subjects, or twenty-three if you count prefixes.
And four of the prefixes are ambiguous as to the number of the subject,
making either "kill" or "kills" appropriate translations without further
context.

Only the subject "he-she-it" yields "kills".  Only the prefix {Du-} is
unambiguously translatable as "kills", with only the null prefix and three
others having "kills" as a possible translation.  Meanwhile, the subjects
"I", "we", "you", "y'all", and "they" all require "kill", along with
nineteen prefixes.

The "kills" form happens in one out of six, or between one and five out of
twenty-four.  No matter how *I* count, it's the least common conjugation.
Using it as the prototypical definition implies that the bare verb is
actually a verb with the null prefix, and that's simply not how Okrand
presents them.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh




Back to archive top level