tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 18 10:12:49 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'aH tIQ
>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?
If I had said "If angry mobs (plural) could think" then yes that could be
confusing. If all angry mobs could think then where is the rare
event? But what I wrote was
QublaHchugh ghom'a' QeH vaj qubbej wanI'vetlh.
"If an angry crowd (singular) could think, then that would be a
rare event."
The sentence mentions only the one hypothetical event of an angry crowd
thinking. It is because angry mobs are not usually capable of thinking
that makes it a rare event when they do.
>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.
Yes, I would rather been able to use /'e'/ here, but as you say there is no
precedent for that.
>"-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."
The reason that /vetlh/ seems intuitively correct here is that since an
angry mob thinking is such a rare event, then it is a "far off"
possibility. Of course intuitive guesses can get you into trouble. But it
seems right to me.
SuSvaj
>...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."