tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 05 01:08:54 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: -law'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 1:47 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: KLBC: -law'
>
>
> ja' De'vID:
> >What do you think of a statement like /DaSovbej/? Does this
> >mean "You certainly know it" (which is how most people seem to read
> >it)? Or, strictly going by the rules, is it "I am certain that you
> >know it"? Perhaps there is not much difference.
>
> I don't see a difference. The certainty is being stated from the point of
> view of the speaker.
>
> However, {DaSovbej'a'} is a line from ST:VI, subtitled "Are you sure?"
> Perhaps it's the interrogative that transfers the qualification from the
> speaker to the answerer,
That would make a lot of sense, since we know that other types of questions
are grammatically built to mimick the answers to the questions. In a
question that uses {nuq}, you replace {nuq} with the noun that it stands for
and you have the answer. In this case, the natural answer is {vISovbej} or
{vISovbejbe'} and in either case, {-bej} refers to the certainty of the
speaker.
> or perhaps Type 6 verb suffixes are just
> not quite
> as clear-cut as TKD makes them out to be in the first place. :-)
I vote for keeping them generally as clear-cut as TKD makes them out to be.
There may be exceptions, but certainly the general best use is to do it like
TKD says to.
> >Also, what do you think of pagh's example from canon:
> >
> >pagh:
> >>...<puvlaHbogh Duj ngabmoHlaw' So'wI'>...
> >
> >In this case, the Klingon Science Guy is obviously not saying
> >that *he* is uncertain that the cloaking device would make ships
> >disappear. He *is* certain - certain that the cloaking device would
> >make the ship *apparently* disappear to whomever was watching it.
> >At least, that's how I would read the sentence.
>
> The change in viewpoints might go along with the action of {-moH}, or it
> might just be that {-law} is somewhat loose in how it applies.
The latter makes more sense than the former, but it's possible that neither
is the case. It is quite possible that it really IS a reference to the
certainty of the speaker and Klingons would simply conceive of the idea
behind this sentence differently than we would because their language is
different.
> >Let's come up with an artificially contrived example. Suppose
> >a Klingon adult is showing a child the wonders of science.
> >He shows her a /ghewHom/ through a microscope. Is it proper for
> >him to say, /tInlaw'/ "It appears to be big"? Or is it
> >wrong in this instance, since he knows for a fact that the
> >/ghewHom/ is actually very small?
>
> That goes along with the Skybox example in treating {-law'} as indicating
> illusory situations, not just uncertain ones. I know *I* would understand
> such a use, but I can't say whether it's strictly grammatical in
> prescriptive terms.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
>
charghwI' 'utlh