tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 22 00:37:47 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day: analepsis
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day: analepsis
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 03:37:13 EST
Some time in the past Seqram~ has written about a term known as analepsis. I
must agree with ghunchu'wI' and what I remember of Seqram's posts. The
subject gets specified the first opportunity; pronouns referring back to the
subject occur from then on. I will say that "no pronoun," i.e., letting the
verb pronominal prefix tell the story, is common in Okrandian Klingon.
Examples: jagh luHoHmeH SuvwI'pu', lunej [chaH] = The warriors are seeking
the enemy in order to kill him/her.
(jagh = enemy; HoH = kills, luHoHmeH = they -- kill -- in order to do so;
SuvwI'pu' = warriors; lunej = they seek (look for) him/her/it; chaH = they [a
pronoun])
tay'taHvIS Suy Qo'noS SuchwI' je, Dochmey je'be'chugh SuchwI', vaj Heghbej
[ghaH] = While a visitor to Kronos and a merchant are together, if the
visitor does not buy things, then he/she will surely die.
(tay' = be together, tay'taHvIS = while [they] are together; Suy = merchant;
Qo'noS = Kronos [refers to the Klingon Home planet tlhIng while referring in
general to the solar system]; SuchwI' = visitor; je = and [connecting nouns];
Dochmey = things; je' = buys, je'be'chugh = if he/she/it/they do not buy; vaj
= thus; Hegh = dies, Heghbej = definitely dies; ghaH = he/she)
The fact that I have placed [chaH] and [ghaH] inside [brackets] indicates
that their use is optional. They are not necessary.
The term analepsis means the later occurrence of a pronoun referring back to
a specified subject.
Disclaimer: You won't find this discussion in The Klingon Dictionary grammar
sections. Much discussion of this sort has occurred on this listserv after
KLI members have observed numerous Okrandian examples.
peHruS
<< ja' Voragh:
>A purely stylistic comment: In short sentences with a subordinate {-meH}
>clause, especially when the subject of both clauses is the same, I think it
>sounds better - and a bit more Okrandian - to put the subject in the second
>(main) clause:
<<ja' ghunchu'wI':
jIQochchu' je jIH. It might be more a matter of style than of grammar, but
I have to insist that *I* find it much better to have a noun appear at the
first opportunity. There's also a good argument for considering
"Okrandian" usage to put the noun first, or even in *both* places. In
section 6.2.1 "Compound sentences", TKD says that repeating the noun is the
"fullest form" of Klingon, but that the second appearance may be replaced
by a pronoun or left out completely if context permits. At the end of
section 6.2.4 "Purpose clauses", it again speaks of replacing or dropping
the *second* of two identical nouns. >>