tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 30 14:00:53 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: law', puS, and time stamps...
From: "Patrick Masterson" <[email protected]>
> I've seen use of time stamps and adverbs on nouns in a law'/puS
construction
> to show change over time, as in a statement charghwI' made:
A "time stamp" is what we call a noun or noun phrase that indicates a time
or time period in which something happened. Some adverbials work like time
stamps (or time stamps work like those adverbials).
A time stamp is going to come in the "header" space before the
Object-Verb-Subject portion of the sentence. Furthermore, it tends to come
before everything else (and I THINK this is stated by Okrand, though I'm not
sure where). There is no grammar to cover time stamps: knowing what time
something happens in a Klingon sentence is entirely based upon the
listener's ability to understand context.
DaHjaj 'IH be'.
The woman is beautiful today.
/DaHjaj/ is a noun that is performing the grammatical function of "not
subject and not object." It has no other grammatical function. It's the
MEANING of the word itself, "today," that gets the listener to understand
what the word is there for.
> DaH be'vam 'IH law' wa'maH vaghben be'vam 'IH puS.
>
> Which apparently is "The woman is now more beautiful than she was fifteen
> years ago." Is this grammatical, or was charghwI' just sort of winging it?
He was winging it. law'/puS constructions allow for only one formula: N1 Q
law' N2 Q puS. N1 and N2 are nouns or noun phrases.
A time stamp is not just a word like /ben/ or /DaHjaj/; it is such a word
used as a header to indicate a time context. In charghwI''s sentence, his
indications of time are not following the formula, which to all appearances
does not allow variation in its components (though, as Klingon for the
Galactic Traveler tells us, other sorts of variations are possible). He
has: A N1 Q law' T N2 Q puS, where A is an adverbial and T is a noun that is
SUPPOSED to represent a time context.
Although we can certainly leave room for artistic expression, a strict
interpretation of the law'/puS construction yields a very different
sentence. The big difference is in the second part: N2 Q puS. Since any
nouns other than the noun (phrase) N2 are not allowed, one MUST interpret
/wa'maH vaghben be'vam/ as a SINGLE noun phrase. We have precedent for what
this would mean: Power Klingon has /cha'vatlhben HIq vItlhutlh/ "I'll drink
two century old ale." It seems to be a fairly clear Noun-Noun construction,
like /baS 'In/ "metal drum" or /Sor Hap/ "wood (tree matter)." Noun-Noun is
like the Genitive case, and needn't imply actual possession.
So in this sentence, /wa'maH vaghben be'vam/ would seem to be able to mean
only "this fifteen year old woman." I remember pausing when I read this,
having to parse it again, because the meaning was clearly ludicrous. We
occasionally hear about charghwI''s romances here on the list, but never has
he given reason to make us suspect that he dates girls so young! At this
point, I realized he must have meant what you realized he meant. By a
strict interpretation, though, it can't mean that.
The other point is that /DaH/, the adverbial, cannot be a part of the
law'/puS formula (unless it were modifying a verb in a noun phrase, which
it's not--an example might be /DaH mumuSbogh be'/ "woman who now hates me").
Because it comes at the beginning of the entire sentence, it can be
interpreted as the adverbial for the entire sentence. We've seen phrases
set before law'/puS constructions modifying all of them. The one that comes
to mind is /tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS/ "Drinking fake ale is
better than drinking water" (The Klingon Way). It's not an adverbial in
front, but it IS a dependent clause, which is dependent on a verb just as an
adverbial is. We may even have an example using an adverbial that I can't
think of offhand.
Thus, we end up reading the following:
DaH be'vam 'IH law' wa'maH vaghben be'vam 'IH puS.
Now this woman is more beautiful than this fifteen year old woman.
Again, I UNDERSTOOD what he meant, after pausing to be sure, and wouldn't
complain if I heard it in conversation. But, strictly speaking by
everything we understand, it's not grammatical.
> I made a similar statement while translating more X-Files quotes (because
I
> know how much you all *love* it when I do that.):
>
> vIt tu'lu'taH 'ach DaH vIt Qob law' ret vIt Qob puS.
>
> The truth is still out there, but it's never been more dangerous.
> (More literally, the truth continues to be found, but the truth now is
more
> dangerous than it was in the past.)
This exactly the same problem. I'd read this as, "The truth continues to be
discovered, but now the truth is more dangerous than the truth of the past."
Luckily for you, this almost means what you wanted it to mean!
> (Now you know why I asked that ret/pIq question a few days ago. :)
Indeed. Be sure you watch for the difference between a time stamp noun and
a noun used as a noun in a Noun-Noun construction as subject or object (or
in a law'/puS construction).
SuStel
Stardate 1412.4