tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 05 07:06:55 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: tuQaHlaH'a' ?
QInvam vItIvqu'. qab vay' pIj 'e' vInoH 'ej vuDwIj vIlab 'ach jIQochbe'DI'
pagh vIchellaHmo' jIlabbe'. ghu'vam vIpaybej.
vaj QInvam vItIv 'e' vImaq.
charghwI' 'utlh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 7:07 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: tuQaHlaH'a' ?
>
>
> From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> > I'm thinking more like "Yesterday spoke to me about killing the targ.":
> >
> > wa'Hu' targh vIHoH 'e' DaDel bIjatlhvIS
>
>
> -taH! -taH! -taH!!!
>
> (Hee hee!)
>
>
> > (Hmm, wa'Hu' where would wa'Hu' really go? I'm so out of practice)
>
>
> Here are the parts of the sentence as you've written them:
>
> wa'Hu' targh vIHoH
> I killed the targ yesterday.
>
> 'e' DaDel (bIjatlhtaHvIS)
> You described that (while you were speaking). (I put the
> relative clause in
> parenthesis because it's extra and could be dropped for this point.)
>
> But the targ-killing didn't happen yesterday, the telling did. Those two
> parts should be:
>
> targh vIHoH
> I killed the targ.
>
> wa'Hu' 'e' DaDel (bIjatlhtaHvIS)
> You described that yesterday (while you were speaking).
>
> /'e'/ is the object of this second sentence, and /wa'Hu'/ is a "header"
> noun. Since headers come before the object, that's where I've placed it.
>
> It may look odd after you've combined the two parts, though:
>
> targh vIHoH wa'Hu' 'e' DaDel (bIjatlhtaHvIS)
> Yesterday (while you were speaking) you described that you killed
> the targ.
>
> The Sentence As Object construction says that the "object sentence" comes
> before the main sentence, and that /'e'/ is the object of the
> main sentence.
> That's what I've done here. The "object sentence" is not inside the main
> sentence--it really is a sentence in its own right, so putting /wa'Hu'/ in
> front of IT instead of in front of /'e' DaDel/ is wrong.
>
>
> > Where the "about" is not a simple noun, but rather a phrase. Of course,
> > if the "about" was a noun, the 'e' wouldn't be there.
>
>
> Many prepositions in English have no equivalent in Klingon. With
> practice,
> one learns how to form sentences using available Klingon grammar, without
> starting out in the English.
>
>
> > My mu'HaqwI' lexicon lists ja'chuq as a verb. As I said, I
> don't have my
> > books with me, so I can't double-check.
> >
> > Is there an adopted rule here about verbs that show up in the dictionary
> > that "appear" to have a suffix being treated as unique verbs?
> I thought I
> > remembered there being some question about that for nouns
> (something like
> > whether or not "QongDaqDaq" was correct)?
>
>
> /mu'HaqwI'/ lists /ja'chuq/ as a verb because that's how it's
> listed in THE
> KLINGON DICTIONARY. There are a number of these words that seem
> to be verbs
> or nouns with suffixes attached (e.g. /ghojmoH/, /HeghmoH/, /QongDaq/).
> This had sparked a lot of controversy on the list, and we were
> thrilled when
> Okrand addressed this on the now-defunct MSN Okrand forum:
>
> "For the most part, entries in The Klingon Dictionary (and also in the
> addendum in Klingon For the Galactic Traveler) that consist of
> verb + suffix
> are indeed just that, verb + suffix. . . . The ones that are listed are
> there as much as a matter of convenience for the user as anything
> else. For
> example, there is an entry for 'commit suicide' just in case
> anyone wants to
> look that word up; but the Klingon equivalent is simply HoH'egh, literally
> 'kill oneself.' . . .
>
> "A problem comes in because some of these forms . . . are so common, they
> seem to, in the minds of some Klingons anyway, act as if they were simply
> verb and not verb + suffix at all. This seems to happen only when the
> suffix in question is -moH 'cause.' Maltz reports having heard both
> quv'eghmoH 'he/she honors him/herself,' which follows the
> expected order . .
> . as well as the weird quvmoH'egh 'he/she honors him/herself,' in
> which the
> Type 1 suffix -'egh 'oneself' follows the Type 4 suffix -moH 'cause,' an
> impossible formation unless the speaker is considering the verb
> to be quvmoH
> 'honor' and not quv 'be honored.' Speakers who do this seem to be aware
> that they are breaking the rules, so they are doing it for rhetorical
> effect." --Okrand, MSN Expert Forum, December 1, 1997
>
> He goes on to say that a notable exception is /lo'laH/ "be
> valuable," which
> is not the same as /lo'/ "use" + /-laH/ "able." It's a distinct verb.
> /lo'laHHa'/ "be unvaluable" is a legitimate word.
>
> He says he'll bring up the topic of how to use /ja'chuq/ in another post,
> but I don't think he ever did. I DO seem to recall someone
> claiming they'd
> asked him about it personally and he agreed that it's /ja'/ plus
> /-chuq/, or
> I may have heard him say it myself. Or, I could be deluding myself and
> remembering it because I want to. However, I think it's likely that he
> recognized that people would want to say they "discuss SOMETHING," and he
> wanted to think of a way to make that work, without simply saying that
> /ja'chuq/ was a distinct verb.
>
> I REALLY think I remember hearing a confirmation of this! (This
> is starting
> to sound pretty pitiful, huh?) Maybe someone else will remember.
>
> By the way, we get confirmation that /QongDaq/ is a single noun in THE
> KLINGON WAY, p. 40: /QongDaqDaq Qotbe' tlhInganpu'/ "Klingons do
> not lie in
> bed."
>
>
> > > It'd be convenient if we could say */quv wIja'chuq/ "We
> discuss honor,"
> but
> > > we can't. This is why I suggest /quv'e' maja'chuq/ "On the topic of
> honor,
> > > know this: we confer."
> > >
> > > wa'Hu' batlh'e' maja'chuq.
> >
> > Aren't you still putting batlh'e' in the object position? I'd be more
> > inclined to see ja'chuq as taking an object, the object being
> the topic of
> > the discussion.
>
>
> No, not any more than I'd be putting /wa'Hu'/ in the object position in
> /wa'Hu' mavem/ "Tomorrow we will wake up." Each sentence has NO object.
> You're just seeing the header (batlh'e') next to the verb because
> there's no
> object to go between them.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 1341.4
>