tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 22 18:32:38 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: agentive -wI'
Will wrote:
>A {bomwI'} is a singer. Not a song singer. That would be a {bom bomwI'}.
>One who conquers it/him/her/them would be {'oH/ghaH/ghaH/chaH charghwI'}.
I wrote:
> tagha' 'ang'egh jIH HoHwI'.
>
> Finally, he who kills me reveals himself.
Will wrote:
>The problem here is that when a pronoun is the possessor, you represent this
in
>Klingon with a Type 4 noun suffix instead of using the pronoun itself
(except
>in a couple strange locative constructions I'll leave undescribed at this
>point). This should be:
>
>tagha' 'ang'egh HoHwI'wI'.
Ah.... I do understand possessive suffixes, I simply had no idea that when
you used the example {bom bomwI'} "He who sings the song", you were using a
genitive construction. I thought you were taking the sentence {bom bom} "He
sings a song" and adding {-wI'} to the subject. Now I believe you were
saying "The singer of the song", basically.
But now I'm puzzled by your other example: {chaH charghwI'} "The conqueror of
them". If mine is {HoHwI'wI'}, shouldn't yours be {charghwI'chaj}?
I wrote:
> And if it is correct, why? Why not {jIH muHoHwI'} or just {muHoHwI'}?
> Wouldn't those be the same thing?
Will wrote:
>Both of those terms are gibberish. You can't use a prefix on a nominalized
verb
>with {-wI'}.
I was trying to make the verb agree with what I perceived as its object,
which in reality is its possessor, if I understand correctly.
Will wrote:
>[..]when I see people I know who are
>definitely skilled enough to do impressive things with the language become
>misled enough to promote a really strange idea with seeming authority, I
feel a
>strong urge to leap in and kill the argument before less experienced people
>become confused by the misleading arguments presented by those these new >
people
>trust to present the truths of the language.
It is abundantly clear to me, at least, that the issue of using prefixes with
-wI' is quite controversial, even if I don't understand every nuance of both
arguments. I know that there's only one person who can make a statement
about Klingon grammar with absolute authority, and that he isn't on this list.
FWIW, I see no cause to "kill" any debate, short of Dr. Okrand specifically
telling us what's what....
Just my opinion.
-Sengval