tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 23 17:18:54 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[tlhIngan-Hol] Re: tlhIngan-Hol Digest 23 Feb 2004 06:00:00 -0000 Issue 2854
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: [tlhIngan-Hol] Re: tlhIngan-Hol Digest 23 Feb 2004 06:00:00 -0000 Issue 2854
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:18:14 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlh Paul:
>Of course, the interesting part is that Klingon was made with bits of many
>different *human* languages. I think I remember hearing or reading
>somewhere that the Object-Verb-Subject construct of the grammar is used in
>many eastern languages. Certainly there are more than enough examples of
>European languages with subject-dependent verb conjugations (I still
>vaguely remember some of my Latin, and the conjugations from that).
HISlaH. 'ach tlhIngan Hol'e' rur Human Hol qech; novna' Hol 'oH tlhIngan
Hol.
Yes, but it's human languages that resemble Klingon in most cases, not the
other way around.
'ach tlhIngan HolvaD mu' qIDmey nob Human Holmey law': *Spanish* Hol,
*Mandarin* Hol, DIvI' Hol je.
But many human languages have contributed vocabulary to Klingon: Spanish,
Mandarin and English, to name a few.
wot DoS, ghIq wot, ghIq wot vangwI' - tIghvam lulo' Human Hol law'. ('ach
Hoch mu'tlheghDaq lulo' Hol puSqu' - lo' *Hixkaryana* Hol).
Many human languages also use some form of Object-Verb-Subject word order.
(Only a couple use it as the default, though.)
qech vIghaj je, 'ach lughchu' 'e' vISovbe'. Human Segh 'oSmeH mojaq [-pu]
lo' *Nez Perce* Hol. tlhIngan Hol chenmoHtaHvIS Marc Okrand, ngIp tlhIngan
Hol 'e' boHar'a'?
Also, I had an idea (which may or may not be correct); the Nez Perce
language uses a suffix [-pu] to denote a group of humans. Might this be the
origin of the Klingon plural suffix <<-pu'>>?
'ach motlhbe' tlhIngan Hol; <<wot DoS>> <<wot vangwI'>> je 'oS wot moHaqmey
(<<rom chut>> 'oH), 'ej 'oS Human Hol wot puS. (*Europe*Daq, <<wot *dative*
DoS>>, <<wot DoS>>, <<wot vangwI'>> je 'oS *Basque* Hol.)
But Klingon is unusual in that its verb agrees with both subject *and*
object (the "rule of accord"), whereas few human languages do. (Basque is
one example, agreeing for dative object as well.)
pab'e' maja'chuqtaHvIS, <<wot DoS>>, <<wot vangwI'>> yaj'a' Hoch nuv?
boyajlaHchu' vIneH, 'ach qechmeyvam mughchu'meH mu' mob wIghajbe'.
By the way, does everyone understand what I mean by <<wot DoS>> (direct
object) and <<wot vangwI'>> (subject)? I wanted to get a fairly concise and
accurate translation of the ideas, since we don't have grammatical terms for
such things yet.
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
You could be a genius! Find out by taking the IQ Test 2003. $5.50 (incl
GST). Click here http://sites.ninemsn.com.au/minisite/testaustralia/