tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 21 22:39:58 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: RE: QeD De'wI' ngermey

From: "...Paul" <>
> Okay, so now my next question is, would you consider this legal:
> SoH chuS law' jISoptaHvIS jIH chuS puS
> "You're louder than I am when I'm eating."
> I'll caveat this right now to say that I'm not so sure -- this makes a
> presumption that the law'/puS construction is actually "two sentences put
> together", and I'm betting that if I don't feel so great about it, you're
> probably vehemently opposed.  ;)

Ask yourself this: is /jISoptaHvIS jIH/ a noun phrase?

If it ain't a noun phrase, it ain't law'/puS.

> > > Right, but /'oy'/ CAN be used adjectivally -- or are you saying it
> >
> > I'm saying we don't have conclusive evidence, thus I brought up the
> > question.
> There would seem to be a large number of words in the dictionary that
> would "not have conclusive evidence" of their use.

There sure are!  Welcome to the list!

> Perhaps { 'oy' } is
> one of the rarer examples where not only do we not have canon examples of
> use,
> but we have conflicting grammatical implications in the various
> English definitions.  Given that you see the law'/puS construct, is it not
> sufficient to expect it is being used in the proper context?

Huh?  I'm not sure I understand that last sentence of yours.  I *understand*
the use of /'oy'/ in your sentence.  I was just pointing out that we don't
know for sure that the usage is the correct one.

It's possible that there is more than one correct interpretation of /'oy'/
the verb (i.e., maybe it can be an action or a quality depending on the
necessary use), but as before, we just have no evidence.

> I would whole heartedly agree; adding { -choH } or { -moH } immediately
> negates any possibility of a qualitative/adjectival verb.  Maybe we need
> to pin Okrand down on this, because I have to wonder if "a condition"
> (Okrand's word in the law'/puS section) could also refer to "a scenario".
> Since the Klingon words aren't marked as "quality" or not, who knows what
> could actually be possible...

I think it's entirely possible that the lack of marking allows for some
fluidity in the interpretation at times, but exactly when (or if) you can
fiddle with things remains a complete mystery to us.

> Yeah, I dunno, I was asking the similar question with things like the
> suffix ordering of "lo'laH".  The basic question comes down to -- when
> there is evidence that a definition in the dictionary is the result of
> applying a suffix to a given verb, is that for convenience, or is it
> "special"?  The MO official response for { lo'laH }, it seems, was that it
> was "special".  I would hazard a guess that things like { chenmoH } and
> { HeghmoH } COULD be considered special (in which case, { yIH HeghmoH }
> would be legal), but I'd be inclined to err on the side of safety and
> defer to the base verb for pointers in that respect...

I believe Marc Okrand said that most entries in TKD that appear to be
verb+suffix ARE verb+suffix, and are included for convenience in the
English -Klingon side.  KGT brings up the topic, and mentions that a common
error is to use suffixes in the wrong order, especially for commonly used

> > > choQochbe''a'?
> >
> > Ack!  Don'tcha mean /bIQoch'a'?/
> I thought only "verbs of saying" had that rule?  Or is it just that I
> should've said { 'e' choQochbe''a' }?  :P

Well, two things.  First, what's the object of /Qoch/ "disagree"?  I'm not
sure that it has one.  It's not listed as "disagree with."  Usually, a
word's definition will include any prepositions in the English to indicate
proper object.

It's POSSIBLE that you're using the prefix trick here, but that's just icky.
And would would be the full version?  */jIHvaD bIQochbe''a'/ "Do you agree
for my benefit?"  Bleah.

And finally, negating a yes/no question like that seems pointless.  The
Klingon word means "disagree" in its root form; this is the base meaning.
You can ask /bIQoch'a'/ "Do you disagree?" in the Klingon, and it's more
direct (and more challenging) than the other.  ("Agree" is our primary word
and "disagree" is a reversed form.  /Qoch/ is their primary word and
/Qochbe'/ is a reversed form.)

Anyway, I was just nitpicking.

Stardate 2891.7

Back to archive top level