tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 14 14:13:27 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mI' mu'Daq DIp mojaq tu'lu'
lay'tel SIvten:
> DaHjaj tetlhvamDaq mu'tlheghHom <<qep'a' javDIchDaq>> vIlegh. DIpDaq
> DIp mojaq poQ tlhIngan pab QaQ, 'ach mu'tlheghHomvam chuvmeyDaq DIp
> mojaq tu'lu'. mu'tlheghHom <<qep'a'Daq javDIch>> vImaS.
> maQochbe''a' vay' jIH je?
SuStel:
: wa'logh jIHvaD Qum Okrand. jatlh Okrand <qep'a' wejDIchDaq>. chaq Qoch
: *matlh, 'a Qochbe'law' Okrand. 'ej pong 'oH <qep'a' wejDIch>'e', <qep'a'
: javDIch>'e' je.
Here's Okrand's post to SuStel on the old MSN expert.forum (11/96?) in full for
those interested:
SuStel --
jabbI'IDlIj vIlaDpu'. qep'a' wejDIchDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan
Hol HaDwI'pu'. ghoHtaH je. tIv'eghtaH je. vaj SuquvmoH.
naDev bIQumqa' 'e' vItul.
Qapla'!
and an old comment SuStel made to the List about it:
"Actually, in answering my letter about {qep'a' wejDIch}, Marc
Okrand used the phrase {qep'a' wejDIchDaq}. Now, it could be
considered just a name, but it may also be possible that noun
suffixes can go to the ordinal number."
Hmm... looks like his views haven't changed much. <g>
IOW, the phrase could be analyzed as {<qep'a' wejDIch>Daq} "at The Third
Congress" - with {qep'a' wejDIch} being an (abbreviated) proper name. (In
full, this would be {<tlhIngan Hol yejHaD qep'a' wejDIch>Daq} "at The Third
Klingon Language Institute Congress".)
OTOH, as SuStel indicated and I suspect, this could well be another of the fine
points of the language, or what our Systems staff at work like to call
"undocumented features". We should always remember that Okrand never intended
the brief grammatical sketch (Okrand's word) published in TKD to be
comprehensive. As he states in the Introduction:
"Although a good many of the fine points are not covered, the sketch
will allow the student of Klingon to figure out what a Klingon is
saying and to respond in an intelligible, though somewhat brutish,
manner. Most Klingons will never know the difference."
: 'a DIpDaq neH <-Daq> Dalan, ghaytan bepbe'lu'.
True, in this case. But, things aren't always so simple when it comes to
{-Daq}:
"If a Type 5 noun suffix is used (section 3.3.5), it follows the
verb, which, when used to modify the noun in this way, can have
no other suffix except the rover {-qu'} emphatic. The Type 5 noun
suffix follows {-qu'}... {veng tInDaq} 'in the big city'. {veng
tInqu'Daq} 'in the very big city'." (TKD p.50)
Type 5 noun suffixes {-Daq}, {-vo'}, {-mo'}, {-vaD}, and {-'e'} must be
attached to the quality (sometimes called the "stative verb") in a noun phrase
if there is one, not the noun itself. Assuming that it wasn't a mistake - and
Okrand usually says admits it when it happens - it's possible that his placing
{-Daq} on the ordinal is an extension of this rule. After all, ordinal numbers
and qualities both modify the nouns they follow, so they are superficially
alike and might tend to attract any suffixes which apply to the nouns.
Just to review what we know about ordinal numbers: The suffix {-DIch} was
introduced in TKD (p.54):
"Ordinal numbers (first, second, etc.) are formed by adding {-DIch}
to the numbers: {wa'DIch} first, {cha'DIch} second, {HutDIch} ninth.
Ordinal numbers follow the noun: {meb cha'DIch} 'second guest'."
Okrand restated this in KGT (p.176f):
"Several of these made-up words involve constructions normally
restricted to numbers. The suffix {-DIch} is attached to a number
to form an ordinal number: {wa'} (one), {wa'DIch} (first); {cha'}
(two), {cha'DIch} (second); {vagh} (five), {vaghDIch} (fifth).
Ordinal numbers follow the noun with which they are associated,
as in {'avwI' vaghDIch} (fifth guard), {nentay wa'DIch} (First
Rite of Ascension)."
He then went on to describe some additional colloquial usages of {-DIch}:
"Sometimes the suffix is heard attached to {pagh} (zero, none),
producing the technically ungrammatical term {paghDIch} (zeroth).
It is used to describe something that was expected to occur but
has not, or that could conceivably occur but has not. ... On the
other extreme, when {-DIch} is attached to {Hoch} (all), the
resulting word, {HochDIch} (allth) is used as an alternate for
{Qav} (be final, last) to refer to the final one of a series whose
members either were counted or could have been counted... The word
also may be used to describe the final step of a process."
Aside from the two new colloquial forms, that's it. We know how ordinal
numbers are formed (cardinal number + {-DIch}) and where they are placed
(following the noun, unlike cardinal numbers which precede the noun. We don't
know if there are any restrictions to their use, whether they behave (or don't
behave) like nouns, etc.
In at least one case an ordinal number has been nominalized, or made into a
noun, according to the TKD Addendum: {cha'DIch} an "aide" (a "second" who
stands with and defends a warrior during a ceremonial challenge [cf. TNG "Sins
of the Father", STE, TKW p.21, etc.].) It's possible that other ordinals may
behave in this way.
I don't think it impossible that a ship's captain might refer to his {yaS
wa'DIch} (First Officer) and {yaS cha'DIch} (Second Officer) as his {wa'DIch}
and {cha'DIch} informally:
Q: yaSvetlh 'Iv, Qugh HoD?
Who's that officer, Captain Kruge?
A: torgh wa'DIchwI' ghaH.
That's Torg, my First.
And getting back to lay'tel's question, how do we say, "Give the disruptor
pistol to the First Officer"? Is it (as he prefers):
yaSvaD wa'DIch nISwI' HIch yInob!
or (as I prefer):
yaS wa'DIchvaD nISwI' HIch yInob!
Or could it even be both, I wonder? I can see the possibility for a nice,
useful distinction being made:
yaSvaD wa'DIch nISwI' HIch yInob!
Give the disruptor pistol to the first officer.
[descriptive: i.e. the first officer you see]
vs.
yaS wa'DIchvaD nISwI' HIch yInob!
Give the disruptor pistol to the First Officer!
[title: i.e. the ship's second in command]
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons