tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 15 13:23:09 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Negation Article
Hi, Will
Thank you so much for your corrections. You definitely pointed out some
sections where I worked rather sloppily.
I couldn't help but comment on a couple of points... That of course
doesn't mean that the suggestions are somehow less valid.
Thanks a lot
Daniela
[email protected] schrieb:
> Some points:
>
> 1. Paramount did not hire Okrand to create a Klingon language. They hired him
> to direct the actors to make some sounds they could put subtitles to. He came
> up with the language pretty much on his own and Paramount liked the idea of
> selling dictionaries, so they went with it. What he did was well beyond the
> bounds of what they hired him to do.
Aha! Didn't know that
I'll also clarify points 2-4 in the paper(about Klingonaase not being a
language, pIqaD not being official, and "t" not being retroflex. For
details refer to original mail).
> 5. You say that nouns can carry more than five affixes. Nouns can carry a
> maximum of five affixes. There are only five noun suffix types and you are not
> allowed to use two suffixes of the same type on any one noun, so you can have
> from zero to five affixes (since there are no noun prefixes).
Maybe a stupid question, but aren't there any rovers for nouns?
> 6. Your example <<SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu'>> has a somewhat controversial use
> of {-pu'} at the end. If this is an Okrandian example, it may have been written
> written early in the development of the language when {-pu'} meant past tense,
> but ever since the publication of TKD, it has marked the perfective, which
> means that while they negotiated, we HAD attacked them. The attack apparently
> preceeded the continuity of their negotiation. It would be better to drop the {-
> pu'}.
Okay, that makes sense (but the example is from TKD, p63).
I'll clarify points 7 and 8 (the role of chuvmey and rovers).
> 9. You state that {-be', -Qo'} and {-Ha'} are rovers and so they can be
> inserted between any two verb suffixes. All three of these can be used on verbs
> totally lacking other suffixes, so there is no requirement that they go between
> suffixes. More accurately, {-be'} can follow any verb root or suffix, {-Ha'}
> always follows the root and {-Qo'} always comes at the end of the sequence of
> the verb and its other suffixes (except Type 9, which follows it).
You're right. I should be more exact in explaining that.
> 10. You state that the example {Soj Samqu'be' puq} disambiguates the meaning of
> {Soj Sambe' puq} to show that the child did not find the food and went hungry,
> rather than that something or someone other than the child found the food, or
> that the child found something other than the food. I think you'd do better to
> say {Soj Sambe'bej puq}. Otherwise, the meaning could be closer to {Soj tu' neH
> puq. not nej vaj Sambe'.}
Okaaay.
> 11. charghwI' and Will Martin are, despite appearances, the same person. No
> sense crediting me twice by different names, unless you also want to credit the
> others by their human and tlhIngan names.
Sorry, I found one email that was singed 'Will' and contained the
sentence "charghwI' feels like he's being paraphrased enough that he
asked me to speak for him..".
Now that I write that I suddenly see that you weren't talking about
somebody else. stupid me {{;-)
> 12. Example 19 {muHoHbe' 'e' chenvIpmoHbe'} is probably misusing the verb
> {chen}. Okrand uses {chenmoH} to mean "make", as in "cause to form". He does
> not use it to cause an action to happen, as you have used it. The example is
> attributed to charghwI'. I believe that never happened. I'd be amazed if I used
> {chen} that way. I hope I didn't and then forgot. If I did write that, I must
> have been very, very sleepy. Better would have been {qaSvIpmoHbe'}
I'll correct that. Somebody else quoted you saying that.
> 13. {chab} needs no plural marker, since it would be redundant. It is not wrong
> to say {wej chabmey}, but it is also not wrong to say {wej chab}, and is
> probably even more common to omit the plural suffix when other grammatical
> evidence shows that the noun is indeed plural. Klingon is less grammatically
> redundant than most languages.
Aha.
> > There are two points where I am not sure whether the examples are
> > correct, these points are indicated in the text. I'd be grateful for
> > your input here.
>
> I hope this helps.
Oh, YES!!