tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 01 15:30:49 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Questions
charghwI':
>> majatlh nuvpu'. "We, the people, speak."
>>
>> The prefix tells you the subject is first person plural. The
>> explicit noun {nuvpu'} tells you what "we" are: people.
HomDoq:
> the one objection I have about this is that in light of
> TKD 5.6 I would interpret the {nuvpu'} as an address,
> that is, I read {majatlh nuvpu'} as "People, we are speaking"
> which not necessarily means that "we" and "people" refers
> to the same entity (assuming context makes it clear this
> is not a quote, meaning "we said <<nuvpu'>>")
That's one of the reasons we use punctuation:
?majatlh nuvpu'.
We, the people, speak.
majatlh, nuvpu'.
We're speaking, people.
majatlh: <<nuvpu'>>.
We said, "people".
DujHoD:
: I would consider this to be an instance of ambiguity. This can be true of any
: subject, not just a first-person subject. For example, {jatlh nuvpu'} could
: mean any of the following:
:
: - The people are speaking.
: - People, he/she/they is/are speaking.
No. Word order. {jatlh nuvpu'} would be "He/she/they is/are speaking,
people." As in English, the name or word in direct address can either precede
or follow the phrase with a slight difference in emphasis or intonation.
jatlh, nuvpu'.
If the context doesn't help to disambiguate, you can always say:
jatlh ghaH, nuvpu'.
jatlh chaH, nuvpu'.
jatlh 'oH, nuvpu'.
: - He/she/they said, {nuvpu'.}
jatlh: <<nuvpu'>>.
jatlh, <<nuvpu'>>.
jatlh -- nuvpu'.
etc.
: This is an accepted element of the language. I don't think {majatlh nuvpu'}
: is any different from {jatlh nuvpu'}.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons