tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 09 04:11:22 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -vo'
ja' SarrIS:
>[...]
>So far, {-vo'} has probably been one of the least frequently used suffixes
>(next to {-beH}, the king of all underutilized suffixes). What do the rest
>of you think of using it to disambiguate the location of the site of these
>verbs?
>
>Qe' Hurvo' Qe'Daq Qanqor vIlegh. "I was outside the restaurant and I saw
>Krankor in the restaurant."
Urk. At first reading, I get two contradictory impressions. The first is
that it sounds...wrong. The second is that it seems to say what you want
it to anyway, even though it does it without quite being grammatical.
>For years, I've been avoiding that because I wanted {-vo'} to refer to
>actual motion,...
That's pretty much how it's described in TKD: "This suffix ... is used
only when action is in a direction away from the noun suffixed with
{-vo'}." I can perhaps entertain a distinction between "motion" and
"action", but a quick look doesn't turn up any obvious examples of {-vo'}
without motion.
>but it makes such a natural counterpart to {-Daq} that it
>would make sense as a sort of second locative for verbs that involve two
>locatives where one is the site of the action and the other is the target
>of the action. I'd favor using {-vo'} as the site marker and {-Daq} as the
>target marker.
Note the primary definition of {-Daq}: "This suffix indicates that
something is happening (or has happened or will happen) in the vicinity of
the noun to which it is attached." This sounds like exactly what you want
to use {-vo'} for. While I can understand how you think it could work, I
believe TKD tells us it *doesn't* work that way.
>Reactions?
It gets the idea across, but only because there's only one way to interpret
it. I have a very strong feeling that a native Klingon speaker would
understand it in a similar way I would understand "Drive me for the
airport."
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
- Prev by Date:
Klingon WOTD: {parmaqqay}), but one rarely uses the word in direct address (as in, say, {parmaqqay HIghoS} [{parmaqqay}, come here]). Instead, couples (officially married and otherwise) tend to call each other by pet names (sometimes called endearments or hypocorisms or, in Klingon, {bang pongmey} ["beloveds' names'"]). A {bang pong} is usually couple-specific--that is, the set of expressions used by one couple is different from that used by another couple. Pet names are almost never uttered unless the two members of the couple are alone and, therefore, are seldom known by anyone else. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of a bang pong is that it be secret, known only by the two members of the couple. The phenomenon of the {bang pong}, however, is not secret. Usually, parents teach their children how the system works and have to give examples in doing so, though it is not known whether the example pet names are actual pet names used by the parents doing the teaching. Sometimes, however, children learn about the custom from other children. In particular, younger children often tell each other pet names they have heard. A child who has a reputation for revealing pet names is usually quite popular among other children, though older Klingons, upon finding out about his or her lack of propriety, will ()
- Next by Date:
Re: Proverbs
- Prev by thread:
Re: -vo'
- Next by thread:
Re: -vo'
- Index(es):