tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 02 19:20:55 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: (KLBC) 2 coordinated Type 5 Suffixes



This topic is actually at the root of the argument that resulted in SuStel
insulting me and leaving the list, and ghunchu'wI' and I basically agreeing
to disagree.

In a conversation with Okrand at qep'a', I confirmed that what you are
guessing from canon is actually correct. Nouns that have the same
grammatical function, such as those that share the same Type 5 noun suffix
and appear at the beginning of a sentence do use a noun conjunction when
combined, and each noun retains its Type 5 suffix. If you have nouns
following one another with different Type 5 suffixes on each noun, there is
no need for a conjunction.

I do not speak with authority here. This was an informal conversation with
Okrand and you'll have to trust me or not in terms of how well I understood
what he was saying, or how far I was leading him toward a particular
conclusion. My intent was not to lead him at all. My intent was to confirm
or change my understanding of how nouns work when they are at the beginning
of a sentence, not as direct object.

SuStel's theory was that all nouns in this position are "head nouns" and
that the Type 5 suffix didn't actually have anything to do with syntax, even
though Okrand calls them "syntactical markers" in TKD. Instead, SuStel and
ghunchu'wI' believe quite sincerely that Type 5 suffixes change a noun's
meaning, not its syntax (it's grammatical function in the sentence). One of
the ways I tried to argue my point was to point out that conjunctions were
needed for nouns with the same Type 5 suffix, but they were not needed for
nouns with different Type 5 suffix.

I pretty much gave up on trying to convince anyone of my position. People
generally either accepted it or not. Nobody seemed to change their mind
throughout the entire discussion.

Still, it makes me smile to see someone going back to this same topic from a
different angle. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination.

I hope that your observation and conclusion receive less controversy and
angst than mine did.

SarrIS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Boozer [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 5:00 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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
>



Back to archive top level