tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 23 13:24:36 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: language-using suffixes vs. personal pronouns

Steven Boozer ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

lay'tel SIvten:
 > If I use {-wI'} on a noun referring to some thing I'm pointing at, must 
I use
 > {ghaH} to correctly refer to it in speech?  Or is {'oH} acceptable?  (This
 > question is prompted by taD's cartoon in QQ4.)

taD:
>My plan, when I made the cartoon, was that the character's use of {'oH}
>would clash with his explained use of {SajwI'}. He goes out of his way to
>refer to the creature as capable of speech, but he then refers to the
>creature as an "it" - thus the punchline, if you will.

Too many people focus on the "capable of speech" comment.  Sentient 
androids and talking computers aside, the basic distinction with Klingon 
pronouns is people vs. things.  Don't over-think it.

To Klingons, animals - even pets - are linguistically things.  (Which is 
why taD's joke works - or should have.)

>Looking at page 51 in TKD now, however, I see that the distinction between
>{chaH} and {bIH} is described as capable of speech vs. incapable of speech
>(presumably because English "they" doesn't make this distinction). However,
>{ghaH} is described simply as "he/she" and {'oH} is described as "it".

Thus a deaf-mute Klingon is still {ghaH}, or a person.



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level