tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 18 07:49:59 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'aH tIQ
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, SuSvaj wrote:
> The only event in the sentence is the act of the crowd thinking. So that
> is what /wanI'/ was referring too. If I had meant looting, I would have
> said looting. I am truly bewildered by the controversy this sentence has
> generated. Especially considering that as far as I can tell it containes
> no errors. /wanI'/ is a noun. /vetlh/ is a noun suffix. Therefore
> /wanI'vetlh/ is perfectly acceptable. There are many ways to phrase the
> idea. If you don't like the way I wrote it then you are free to phrase
> another way.
Here's why I particularly don't like it:
TKD, p 26:
"-vam this
Like its English translation, this suffix indicates that the noun refers
to an object *which is nearby or which is the topic of the conversation*."
(emphasis mine)
"-vetlh that
This suffix indicates that the noun refers to an object which is not
nearby or which is being brought up again as the topic of conversation."
It is not grammatically correct, then, to be referring to the topic set by
your subordinate clause with /-vetlh/. /-vam/ would be more accurate, but
I think your construction would still generate some confusion just because
even with /-vam/ saying "this event", a lot of people are not likely to
associate it with "if an angry mob can think".
Consider the use of "this" and "that" in this English conversational
context:
Person A: "It's a shame people are looting hospitals."
Person B: "If angry mobs could think, this event would be rare." or
"If angry mobs could think, that event would be rare."
What event is Person B referring to? I don't think many people would
presume the reference is to an angry mob thinking. The context has
been established by the first person, and does not change with the use
of the subordinate clause. Even if you used the other subordinate
clauses, you end up with a reference to the original context:
Person B: "While angry mobs can think, that event would be rare."
Person B: "As soon as angry mobs can think, that event would be rare."
Now, you're going to say that this is Klingon, not English, so the rules
may be different. You may be right. But this is the essence of
the confusion and the discussion.
This then leads into one of the larger problems of Klingon -- the
inability to use a sentence as the subject of a verb (We have /'e'/ to
refer to a sentence as an object, but no parallel to use for a subject).
If that option were available, you could cast your sentence more clearly
to indicate that your clause is your subject.
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"No matter where you go, there you are."