tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 05 12:48:36 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Grammar musings for the day - poH mu'mey
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Grammar musings for the day - poH mu'mey
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:47:02 -0500
From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:57:19 -0600
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>pagh wrote:
>: The first thing I thought of was "I don't have the 11 minutes to watch
it",
>vIbejmeH wa'maH wa' tup vIghajbe'.
>vIbejmeH wa'maH wa' tup tu'lu'be'.
When I read these translations, I feel pushed to make the assumption that
{vIbejmeH} is modifying the verb instead of the direct object. "In order
that I watch it, I do not have 11 minutes." In other words, my not having
11 minutes somehow is intentially used toward the goal of my watching it.
I then back up and try again, since this doesn't make sense. I consider
having {vIbejmeH} modify {wa'maH wa' tup}, but I stumble because I've never
seen an example in cannon where a verb with {-meH} modifying a noun had a
prefix on it. Always, in canon, whenever Okrand has used {-meH} on a verb
modifying a noun, it lacked a prefix, and always, whenever in canon Okrand
used {-meH} on a verb with a prefix, that verb modified the main verb.
I may be making a false generalization based on an observation of an
accidental consistency in examples. Still, I'd love to have exceptions to
my observation pointed out to me so I'll stop making this generalization.
>: which led to an internal debate about the order of numbers and <-meH>
>: clauses. If a <-meH> clause modifies a noun, and I want to add a number
to
>: that noun, does it go before or after the <-meH> clause? If I'm talking
>: about four boy's knives, is it <loS ghojmeH taj> or <ghojmeH loS taj>? I
>: can't come up with a strong rational argument either way, but the second
>: just seems wrong.
>Good question. My first guess is that Okrand might respond that it
depends on
>what you're trying to say:
> loS ghojmeH taj = 4 learners-knives
I'd read this as "four in-order-to-learn knives", or "four
beginner's-knives". There are four knives, not four beginners.
>i.e. a special type of knife
Actually, no. Four knives of one type.
> ghojmeH loS taj = 4 knives for learning
I'd as easily read this as "a knife in order that four learn". But then, it
would effectively break my generalization about {-meH} never modifying a
noun if it has a subject. That presses me to consider this to be the
phrase, "in order that four knives learn" and have it modify some as yet
unstated verb. NOW things are getting weird.
Since voragh and I are both pretty good with the language and we're coming
to opposite conclusions about what seems right, and pagh, who is also no
slouch with the language, isn't sure, I'd say this is a pretty good
question worthy of thought, whether or not it brings us to any obvious
conclusions.
>i.e. 4 knives (of any sort) which you're using to learn something. E.g. an
>apprentice chef being trained to make the slits in animal limbs needed to
>extract veins (cf. KGT 97). (Perhaps the head chef doesn't trust him not
to
>break his good, heirloom {SIjwI'}.)
>I'll give this some more thought, but here's an example from canon that
might
>be helpful:
> tera' vatlh DISpoH cha'maH loS bong QongmeH qItI'nga Duj tI'ang
> ghompu' DIvI' 'ejDo' 'entepray'.
> A sleeper ship of this [K'Tinga] class, the T'Ong, was encountered
> in the 24th century by the USS Enterprise. (SkyBox S15)
>Notice the placement of {qItI'nga}: {QongmeH qItI'nga Duj} "a
K'tinga(-class)
>sleeper-ship" as well as the apposition with {tI'ang}.
This is interesting, but I don't see it applying to the grammar point in
question.
>Another thought: You might have to recast the Klingon. Okrand came up
with
>{SopmeH pa'} "dining room, eating room" ("literally room in order to eat
or
>room for eating") as an example on st.klingon (6/97),
Note, another {-meH} verb modifying a noun. No prefix.
> but later used
>{SopwI'pa'} "mess hall" in KGT. You might be able to recast {ghojmeH taj}
as
>{ghojwI' taj} or {ghojwI'taj} when counting.
Good idea, though I'd be cautious about {ghojwI'taj}. I still think a word
pair has to become extremely common before it can be legitimately combined
to form one word. Klingon is not German.
> Not that it answers your
>question, but it's not always predictable whether you use {-meH} or {-wI'}
when
>modifying a noun with a verb (e.g. {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party" instead of
>*{tIjmeH ghom}), or whether you use no suffix at all (e.g. {Saqghom}
"landing
>party" instead of *{SaqmeH ghom} or *{SaqwI'ghom}).
Again, I tend to let Okrand build the compound nouns with very few
exceptions.
>: The other thing I noticed is that despite the slew of nice new
measurement
>: words we got in KGT like <juch> and <ngI'>, we don't (yet) have a word
for
>: "have a duration of". This means that to say something is 11 minutes
long, I
>: have to say something like <much bejlu'taHvIS, qaS wa'maH wa' tup>. I
>: suspect there is a verb meaning "have a duration of" out there somewhere,
>: but perhaps time is treated differently.
>Another good question. All we have is {nI'} "be long, be lengthy
(duration)"
> nI'be' yInmaj 'ach wovqu'
> Our lives burn short and bright. (Anthem)
> yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep
> Live long and prosper! (RT)
> poH nI'
> a long time. KGT
> nI' ram
> The night is long. KGT
> maj, nI' ram
> Good, the night is long. KGT
> nI' jajvam
> This day is long. (st.klingon)
> nI' DaHjaj
> Today is long. (st.klingon)
Do I see {nI''ar} in our future? [I'm just kidding guys. Honest.]
>and {ngaj} "be short (in duration)"
> ngaj ram
> The night is short. KGT
> maj, ngaj ram
> Good, the night is short. KGT
>but no canonical way to quantify them other than splitting the statement
into
>two clauses:
> nI' much; wa'maH wa' tup 'oH.
> The show is eleven minutes long.
What occurs to me:
muchvam bejlu'meH wa'maH wa' tup poQlu'.
This seems more symantically direct than any of the other approaches to
this statement. It answers the question:
muchvam vIbejmeH tup 'ar vIpoQ?
I see this as a way around the need for new vocabulary. It is not as
concise as a special verb, but I don't see any of the not-quite-fitting
meaning that the other constructions have.
Just to come up with other tightly-holding-to-the-idea examples:
muchvam naQ vIbejmeH tup 'ar vIlo'nIS?
Or, just to make an amusing statement about time being money:
muchvam vIDIlmeH tup 'ar poQlu'.
Don't take that one seriously.
>or
> ngaj much; wa'maH wa' rep neH qaS.
> The show lasts only eleven minutes.
I'm a little shaky on using minutes as the direct object of {qaS}. Are we
counting time here as one of those unsuffixed "other" nouns at the head of
the sentence? If we do that, it looks like a time stamp, possibly referring
to 11 minutes after midnight.
>Splitting a thought into two clauses is a perfectly good Klingon method,
as in
>countless similes: e.g. {ngo'; QI'tu' rur} "old as Qui'Tu" or {qan; QI'tu'
rur}
>"He/she is as old as Qui'Tu."
>Another method is hinted at in Okrand's 2/98 st.klingon discussion on how
to
>say "it's brown":
> Doq 'ej Qaj wuS rur
> be orange/red and resemble kradge lips.
> ("The lips of the kradge are presumably a particular shade of brown.")
>This method yields
> nI' much 'ej wa'maH wa' tup qaS.
Again, you are using minutes as the direct object of {qaS}, which probably
doesn't take a direct object of any kind.
> ngaj much 'ej wa'maH wa' tup qaS.
You obviously like this idea.
>Hmm... another thought on measuring time. We have the proverbial
expression
> wa'maH cha' pemmey wa'maH cha' rammey je
> twelve days and twelve nights
>which is an idiom for "a long time") given in KGT (p. 121). I don't have
my
>KGT with me now, but does Okrand use this expression in a sentence?
>Well, that's enough for now. jIvumqa'nIS!
jIH je.
>--
>Voragh
>Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
SarrIS