tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 02 14:00:36 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (KLBC) 2 coordinated Type 5 Suffixes
ghaHbe'wI' asks:
I don't recall that Okrand addresses this wrinkle in TKD. As the answer seems
to be in canon, I'll presume to slip in ahead of turn and answer ghaHbe'wI's
question which, as usual, intrigued me.
: Here you have 2 sample sentences, where 2 {-mo'} and {-vaD} are coordinated
: by a {je}:
:
: 1a. Qaghmajmo' Qapla'chajmo' je nujey romuluSnganpu'
: 2a. lurSa'vaD be'etorvaD je nab QIj romuluSngan
Since I couldn't find a example from canon with {-mo'} and {-vaD}, I checked
other Type 5 noun suffixes and found:
poSDaq nIHDaq je QamtaHvIS SuvwI'pu', chaH jojDaq yItnIS lopwI'
The initiate must pass through a gauntlet of warriors. S9
["While warriors stand on the left and (on) the right, the initiate
must walk between them."]
This implies that the pattern is indeed {Xmo' Ymo' je} "due to X and Y", {XvaD
YvaD je} "to/for X and Y", etc.
: What happens if I delete 1 repetitive suffix but I keep the coordinating
{je}?
You lose the (Klingon) grammatical relationship between the two nouns.
: 1b. Qaghmaj Qapla'chajmo' je nujey romuluSnganpu'
: 2b. lurSa' be'etorvaD je nab QIj romuluSngan
This last may well be heard as a badly-formed comment directed toward Lursa:
Lursa, the Romulan explained the plan and to B'Etor. (?!)
for the grammatically correct:
lurSa' be'etorvaD nab QIj je romuluSngan.
Lursa, the Romulan explained the plan to B'Etor too.
Repeating {-vaD} on both names may link them more closely for the listener.
: Do these sentences make sense? What do you think?
As an English speaker I can understand them easily enough but in general,
Klingon grammar - or, at least, good Klingon style - doesn't allow deletion of
"repetitive" elements. Yet another example of linked suffixed - not Type 5
however - nouns comes from Okrand's untranslated dedication to TKW:
SoSwI' vavwI' je quvmoHjaj paqvam
[May this book honor my mother and (my) father.]
Notice that he did not delete the repetitive {-wI'}, even though the second
"my" would often be omitted in English. Nouns with suffixes are apparently
linked with {je} just as unsuffixed nouns. Although the resulting
constructions may sound repetitive or redundant to anglophones, they probably
don't to Klingons.
If anyone can find a good counter-example from canon, however, I'd like to see
it. I couldn't think of one off-hand.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons