tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 22 14:20:43 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: agentive -wI'
Lawrence wrote:
>Rather, my position is simply that you can put a prefix on a verb with
>{-wI'} because we actually *do* have examples of it. It's simply that those
>examples have all been verbs with the null (0) suffix associated with third
>person singular or plural.
>
>That's the premise I work from. That a simple construction like {HoH-wI'}
>"killer" is really {0-HoH-wI'}.
>
>When we look at a verb in a Klingon sentence, we don't say "oh, there's no
>prefix, I wonder what person it is." We *know* that a verb without a
>prefix is third person, that it actually carries the null prefix.
>
>When we add the Type-9 suffix {-wI'} to a verb in the typical fashion, we
>don't first stop and say "wait, I must remove the null prefix." Nor does
>Okrand say that we do. No special provision is made for {-wI'} to even hint
>that it operates differently than its fellow Type-9 suffixes.
Interesting idea. In TKD (p.20) Okrand analyzed {baHwI'} "gunner":
"which consists of the verb {baH} 'fire (a torpedo)' plus {-wI'} 'one
who does'. Thus, {baHwI'} is literally 'one who fires [a torpedo]'."
Similarly for {So'wI'} "cloaking device" on the same page:
"[{So'wI'}] comes from the verb {So'} 'cloak' plus {-wI'} 'thing which
does. {So'wI'} is a 'thing which cloaks'."
Following Lawrence's explanation, it's actually a "thing which cloaks
(something)" with the null object prefix: "it/he/she [DOES SOMETHING TO]
it/him/her/them".
Thus, a {bomwI'} "singer" is "one who sings (a song), {charghwI'} "victor,
conqueror" is "one who conquers (it/him/her/them)", etc.
Remember, TKD is only a -sketch- of Klingon grammar; it was never meant to
be exhaustive. As Okrand writes in the introduction:
"Although a good many of the fine points are not covered, the sketch will
allow the student of Klingon to figure out what a Klingon is saying and
to respond in an intelligible, though somewhat brutish, manner. Most
Klingons will never know the difference."
The fact that we haven't seen Okrand do the "prefix + {-wI'} trick" with
any other prefixes may just be due to the nature of the corpus which,
except for the SkyBox cards, is relatively simple Klingon prose after
all. As I mentioned earlier, you're probably more likely to see this done
in song and poetry, of which we only have one complete short {van bom}
({Qoy qeylIS puqloD}) and a couple of stray lines from one or two others
IIRC. For all we know, this may even be an archaic feature that - except
for the null prefix - has gone out of modern fashion but may be preserved
in some songs, poetry and ritual speech. (Members of the Klingon
Shakespeare Restoration Project take note!)
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons