tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 20 20:11:16 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -pu' on second verb
>> DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS
>> be'nI'pu' lurSa' be'etor je. [Skybox S26]
ja' Andrew <[email protected]>:
>I'm confused. Is it now appropriate to put the adverbial after 'e'?
The "logical" place is before the object, as with any other
run-of-the-mill sentence. Remember, however, the exceptional case of
an object marked with the suffix {-'e'} being able to come before an
adverbial. The pronoun and suffix are not the same thing, but they
*sound* the same, and it's not a big stretch to consider that maybe
the usual grammar might have become a bit warped by the coincidence.
Since TKD doesn't address it directly, the proper placement of an
adverbial in a sentence having {'e'} as its object is arguably a
matter of custom, not definition. :-) The custom among longtime
speakers is to put the adverbial first, even in the light of the
canon counterexample. That might be wrong for {ta' Hol} as presented
to us in the officially published materials. But it's definitely
accepted (and even perhaps preferred) usage on this mailing list.
Maybe it reflects a true dialectical split in the grammar (as opposed
to one invented for one reason or another). Klingon has certainly
been around long enough, and has actually been used long enough, for
such a thing to occur.
(Or maybe the counterexample is an error. The aspect suffix on the
second verb is certainly at odds with TKD's admonition not to do it.
I'm not greatly worried about the discrepancy.)
We did mention the topic to Marc Okrand at qep'a', without actually
discussing it. Perhaps there will be some official word on it. Or
perhaps not.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh