tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 23 16:15:56 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: (KLBC) {nuq} & {'Iv} as pronouns
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: (KLBC) {nuq} & {'Iv} as pronouns
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:18:02 -0700
jatlh ghaHbe'wI':
> I've recently buyed "The grammarian's Desk" by {HoD Qanqor},
> and now I begin to understand why does everybody take him as
> a reference. It's very interesting see him taking clues and
> getting responses to questions that still now are current.
> But there is a chapter ('Iv and nuq as Pronouns) that amazed
> me. There, basing upon a sentences from the Conversational
> Klingon tape, Captain Krankor suposes {'Iv} and {nuq} to be
> a pro to be-verb, so they can mean "who is" and "what is".
> Later, he applies some verb suffixes to them to make examples.
> (pages 24, 25 of TGD)
> I have'nt see never this usage, so I guess {HoD Qanqor}'s
> supposition is wrong. But I'm willing to know : why?, what
> did Okrand answered to him about this question? and where
> did his response appeared?
> Also, did somebody noted that if our Captain is right, it
> would cause {tlhIngan Hol} to be very similar to Salish
> languages? Which are the American Indian languages that
> Okrand studied?
There's not much I can add to Krankor's insights, except to say that I agree
with him. The Conversational Klingon tape has some obvious errors, but this
looks like real grammar. The context where <'Iv> and <nuq> can act as
pronouns is not clear - perhaps it's only in informal everyday Klingon and
not formal written Klingon. But they clearly can function as pronouns/verbs
in some contexts.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm