tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 10 15:59:39 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: to' nech, 001: {Hal latlh yIyu', lI'mo' pagh lI'be'mo'}

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Boozer" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: to' nech, 001: {Hal latlh yIyu', lI'mo' pagh lI'be'mo'}

> >>>K: Hal latlh yIyu', lI'mo' pagh lI'be'mo'.
> >>>Gloss: Interrogate another source; because this is useful, or not.
> Voragh:
> >>'ISqu':
> >> > Since <latlh> is a noun, not a verb, I believe it should come before
> >> <Hal>:
> >> > <latlh Hal>
> >>'ISqu' is correct; {latlh} "additional one, other one, another one"
> >>preceeds the noun it modifies.
> Sean:
> >>[...]consider using the noun {vay'} "anybody, anything, somebody,
> >>something, someone":
> >>   latlh vay' yIyu'!
> >>   Interrogate someone/something else.
> >
> >Now that I think about it, I suppose I'm being redundant by referring to
> >the person interrogated as a "source [of information]" -- whoever one
> >interrogates, is a source of information, if you do it right.  Even if
> >they refuse to talk, that itself is a kind of information.  So I might as
> >well just say {latlh yIyu'!}.  That nicely ducks the question of
> >whether/how {Hal} is usable to mean "information source".
> Even better; I should have thought about that myself.  Some examples from
> Okrand:
>    latlh Datlhutlh'a'
>    Will you drink another one? CK
>    latlh?
>    And the others?
>    ["The rest?"] ST5
> Note that {latlh} can take a plural suffix:
>    Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey. ghoS tlhIngan SuvwI' maq.
>    This yell ... serves to warn the other dead that a Klingon warrior is
> coming. S31
>    (N.B. {Heghpu'bogh latlhpu'} "the others who have died"}
> Note the difference: {latlhpu'} "other people", {latlhmey} "other things"
> and (theoretically) {latlhDu'} "other body parts".
> >I recall that in a genitive construction, a Noun Noun construction goes
> >the order Possessor Possessed (like "John knife"), but I don't rightly
> >know the rules for other situations, like apposition ({yuQ tera'} or
> >{tera' yuQ}?), or even whatever situation is there in {latlh N}, if one
> >can even generalize from that to other structures.
> We do have one undisputed case of apposition in Klingon:
>    DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu'
>     lurSa' be'etor je.
>    The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor, are constantly
>     seeking a higher standing for the House of Duras within the Klingon
>     High Council. S26
> Apposition in Klingon is a matter of some dispute among Klingonists.  Some
> things that look like apposition - such as titles, ranks, and other
> identifying labels - may not be.  For example, "Captain Kruge" is not,
> strictly speaking, apposition in English.  I was taught years ago that the
> test of whether a noun is in apposition is whether each part can be used
> independently to form a complete, grammatically correct, sentence *as is*
> (i.e. without modification).  E.g.:
>    1. Captain Kruge executed the prisoner.
>    1a. Kruge executed the prisoner.
>    1b. *Captain executed the prisoner.
> Not apposition.  1b is not grammatical as is; you have to add something to
>    1c. The captain executed the prisoner.
>    1d. A captain executed the prisoner.
>    1e. My captain executed the prisoner.
>    etc.
> Another example:
>    2. The Duras sisters, Lursa and B'Etor, collaborated with the Romulans.
>    2a. The Duras sisters collaborated with the Romulans.
>    2b. Lursa and B'Etor collaborated with the Romulans.
> Apposition.  Both derived sentences are grammatical without needing to be
> modified.
> The problem is that this distinction often fails in Klingon:
>    3.  qama' muH Qugh HoD.
>        "Captain Kruge executed the prisoner."
>    3a. qama' muH Qugh.
>        "Kruge executed the prisoner."
>    3b. qama' muH HoD.
>        "The captain executed the prisoner."
> Both derived Klingon sentences are grammatical as is.  So the question
> is:  Are ranks, titles, etc. appositional in terms of Klingon grammar or
> not?  It certainly looks that way.
> A second problem is that apposition and ranks, labels, etc., look like
> possession in Klingon.  {Qugh HoD} superficially looks like "Kruge's
> captain", which confuses many beginners.  The Planet Earth (label) and
> planet, Earth, ..." (apposition) would both be {tera' yuQ}, which does not
> mean "Earth's planet" - at least, not here.  OTOH, you can say {tera'
> meaning "Earth's moon".  You can see where this gets a bit tricky.  The
> careful use of punctuation helps make your meaning clear:
>    mech 'el Qugh HoD.
>    Capt. Kruge entered the bridge.
>    mech 'el Qugh, HoD.
>    Kruge, the captain, entered the bridge.
>    mech 'el HoD, Qugh.
>    The captain, Kruge, entered the bridge.
>    The captain (i.e. Kruge) entered the bridge.
> and:
>    Sol HovtayDaq 'oHtaH tera' yuQ.
>    The Planet Earth is located in the Sol System.
>    Sol HovtayDaq 'oHtaH tera', yuQ.
>    Earth, a planet, is located in the Sol System.
>    Sol HovtayDaq 'oHtaH tera' (yuQ).
>    Earth (a planet) is located in the Sol System.
>    Sol HovtayDaq 'oHtaH yuQ, tera'.
>    The planet, Earth, is located in the Sol System.
>    Sol HovtayDaq 'oHtaH yuQ (tera').
>    The planet (Earth) is located in the Sol System.
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level