tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 05 13:57:49 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Possessive pronouns

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

~mark asks:

>And a couple questions, because it's been a while and I've forgotten
>a lot of this stuff:
>
>1. ISTR (although my copy is at home and I can't look right now) that {-Daj}
>    is glossed only as "his/her[s]" in TKD, not as "its".  Is there evidence
>    elsewhere that inanimate objects (things incapable of using language)
>    can be possessors as well as possessed?  Could you, when talking about 
> some
>    planet, say {monDaj} to refer to "its capital"?  Or would you have to
>    fall back on a noun-noun construction?

vaj toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'
"That means the Federation will be sending a rescue ship of its own." ST5

HeDaj yIqIm
"Track her course!" ST5 ("its"?, i.e. Enterprise's)

pel'aQDaj ghorpa'
before it breaks its shell KGT

yoq yIn yuQ 'oH Qo'noS'e'. yInSIp voQSIp je ngaS muDDaj.
Qo'noS is a class-M planet with an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. S27


>2. How are nouns which are temporarily incapable of using language treated?
>    For instance, my 3.5-week-old son is definitely incapable of using
>    language at the moment, but I fully expect him to be capable of using it
>    in the future.  So is he {puqloDwIj} or {puqloDwI'}?

This is a bigger question:  Is a baby an "it" {'oH} or a "s/he" {ghaH}?  I 
would imagine the latter, as they have - as a class - the inherent 
capability of using language (like a deaf-mute).  Whether they actually use 
language at a given moment is probably irrelevant.  Also "use language" is 
a broad term; if the baby recognizes its name, it's using language.  (Of 
course pets recognize some words, including their names, yet grammatically 
they're considered "its" in Klingon, i.e. not "capable of using language".)

Okrand discussed babies in his HolQeD article (HQ 10.2:8-9):

   Similarly, {nujDajDaq rIl'egh ghu}, literally "at his/her mouth, the baby
   uses at him/herself his/her thumb", is used for "the baby sucks its thumb."

   nujDajDaq mar'egh ghu
   the baby sucks its big toe

This would have been the perfect place for him to say that Klingon babies 
are considered "incapable of using language", but he didn't.

(You know, I bet Okrand really wishes he had just said "considered people" 
instead of "capable of using language" in TKD.  It sure would have avoided 
all those recurring questions about androids, answering machines, talking 
computers, deaf-mutes, stroke victims, pets and babies!)


-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level