tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 16 19:58:27 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: mI' mu'Daq DIp mojaq tu'lu'
- From: [email protected] (William Martin)
- Subject: RE: mI' mu'Daq DIp mojaq tu'lu'
- Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 22:58:10 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Boozer [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 5:13 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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?
[Lots of voragh's typically excellent citations and opions snipped because I
agree with them too much to even note them.]
> 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]
While I find this interesting and I always like the grammar we are given to
offer widely variable, unambiguous range of expression, I have to say that I
STRONGLY prefer {yaS wa'DIchvaD} to {yaSvaD wa'DIch} in all instances. In
Okrand's usage, he has consistently given us rules that move Type 5 suffixes
to the end of any noun phrase. That's why you can't put a Type 5 suffix on
the first word of a noun-noun possessive, and why you put it after the
ajectival verb.
Basically, except for relative clauses, every time there is a cluster of
words modifying a noun that links to the main verb through some grammatical
function other than subject or object, the Type 5 noun suffix defining that
function follows the whole phrase. That was actually why I was bummed out by
the inconsistency when Okrand declared that Type 5 suffix would NOT go at
the end of a relative clause where the head noun was a locative for the main
verb. The whole reason I thought it was ugly (and still do) is that it was
inconsistent with this otherwise VERY consistent trend in the language.
I actually think it was SuStel who suggested that perhaps {-Daq} could be
applied to the last word in the relative clause, even if it were a verb. It
was a seriously cool idea. I loved it, but Okrand didn't go that way and
instead he gave us a grammar that he has used exactly twice in over a decade
and the rest of us VERY rarely use it because it is so ugly. Instead, we
just split the relative clause out into a separate sentence, much as Okrand
does himself.
If you want to say "Give the disruptor to the first officer you see," just
say, {yaD DaghomDI' ghaHvaD nISwI' yInob.}
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
charghwI' 'utlh