tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 19 07:33:13 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day (bo-)
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day (bo-)
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:32:45 CST
> [...conjugating the verbs, as in (Sov = knows)...]
>
jIja'
> > I actually like this. It helps prevent people from thinking they
> > can use un-prefixed verb forms like they can use infinitives in English.
>
ja' ghunchu'wI'
> > How does it do that? I don't understand what you mean.
>
jIja'
> >because it is different in form from the infinitive, thus stressing the fact
> >that it is a conjugated verb form.
>
ja' ghunchu'wI':
> 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.)
>
I don't see {-ghach} as forming infinitives either (surprise)
the main point is, that forms like {Hoch} are not infinitives and thus
cannot be used in situations where English uses "(to) kill"
> >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.
>
well, I didn't mean to claim it *has* to bee seen as having a 0 prefix
in order to make sense, I'm questioning the position that it *has* to
be seen as unprefixed in order to make sense.
> Verbs with {-meH} certainly get used with no prefix whatsoever at times.
>
that's why I wrote "except for the case of {-meH}" up there...
> >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.
>
as my own example shows, I made a mistake w.r.t. sg/pl, but the
verb cannot have a 1st or 2nd person subject, qar'a'?
(you make the *additional* claim that it "should have *no* subject")
> >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.
>
what did you think {luHoHwI'} means?
> >> ...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.
[snipped ghunchu'wI's count; my own recount follows; no hanging chads]
{HoH} can only mean one of five things (disregarding tenses in English):
i) he/she/it kills
ii) they kill
iii) he/she/it kills him/her/it
iv) he/she/it kills them
v) they kill them
other combinations of subject/object require prefixes different from 0
and are thus (in my mind) not represented by {HoH}. It may sound strange
to you, but in order to form {vIHoH} I "replace" the 0-prefix by {vI-}
(o.k. in real life I memorized the tables and do not "replace" any
prefixes at all, it's just like learning to conjugate verbs in other
languages)
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]