tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 13 15:57:30 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "ser" and "estar" (to be)
From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
> Voragh:
> > > There is, however, a slight wrinkle when using pronouns to refer to
> > > location: you have to say PRONOUN + {-taH} "continuous". E.g.:
>
> SuStel:
> >My guess is this isn't so much a linguistic requirement as a practical
one.
>
> I'm not so sure. Just to play Fek'lhr's advocate for a moment, Okrand
used
> {PRO+taH} even for temporary locations.
It's not a question of whether it's temporary or not. It's whether your
presence in the location is "continuous" or not.
> pa'Daq jIHtaH
> I'm in the room. TKD
>
> pa'wIjDaq jIHtaH
> I am in my quarters. TKD
>
> pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'
> The commander is in his quarters. TKD
>
> jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'
> I'm lost. TKD
>
> naDev bIHtaH
> Here they are. PK
In all of these cases, the people or objects in question are in their
locations in an ongoing basis, whether or not it's a permanent one. When
it's just a simple matter of being in or at a location, the situation calls
for /-taH/. When the location is not that simple, other suffixes might
apply.
> >Given the right circumstances, I could see other suffixes being used this
way.
> >
> > wa' rep ret jImej; DaH naDev jIHqa'.
> > I left an hour ago; now I'm here again.
>
> I would expect to hear {DaH naDev jIHtaHqa'}.
That would put a type 3 suffix after a type 7 suffix. At best it'd have to
be /DaH naDev jIHqa'taH/.
/-qa'/ refers to a resumption of a previously discontinued state. If I say
/jIQuchqa'/, it means I resume being happy. Continuity after the
discontinuity is implied. (/-qa'/ can also be used to refer to
non-continuous actions.) Likewise, in my previous example of coming back
after leaving an hour ago, the continuity of my presence after returning is
implied with /-qa'/.
> There are no examples of {-qa'} being used on a pronoun.
Mind you, I'm not saying these MUST be acceptable in Klingon. However, they
seem a reasonable use to me, given what we know of canon, and my feel for
the language. Lack of canon is not proof of invalidity.
> Okrand writes
> (TKD 37) about {-qa'}: "Using this suffix implies that an action had been
> taking place, then it stopped, and then it began again". Is {jIH} "I am"
> really an *action*?
/jIH/ isn't a verb, but you can use verb suffixes on it.
And how about /'IHqa'/ "be beautiful again." Suppose someone were in an
accident, and became horribly scarred. They have some plastic surgery, and
become beautiful again. That would be /'IHqa'/. Is /'IH/ "be beautiful" an
*action*?
And what about /-taH/? It's explained in TKD as, "This suffix indicates
that an action is ongoing." If you can use /-taH/, which describes an
ongoing *action*, on a pronoun, why not /-qa'/, which describes a resumed
action?
I don't think the word "action" should be taken quite that literally.
I don't see any good reason why /-qa'/ can't be used on a pronoun. There's
no proof that it's allowed, but there's no proof that it's NOT allowed
either, and it performs a productive and easy to understand function.
> > pa'lIjDaq jIHlI'.
> > I'm in your room (and will be until I don't have to be anymore).
>
> There are no examples of any other Type 7 suffix being used on a pronoun
> other than {-taH}, and all the examples of the latter are those I provided
> in my last post showing location.
>
> Okrand writes (TKD 42f.) that "{-lI'} implies that the activity has a
known
> goal or a definite stopping point. In other words, it suggests that
> progress is being made toward that goal." Again, I'm not sure that
> "being" is an activity. Linguistically at least, pronouns-as-verbs behave
> as stative verbs, not action verbs.
>
> > pa' 'oH! DaH pa' 'oH! DaH pa' 'oH!
> > There it is! Now it's over there! Now it's over there!
> > (said pointing at an erratically-moving object)
>
> This one without any suffix, however, I think is quite possible. I can
> easily imagine hearing this from a frustrated {nuHpIn} trying to get a
lock
> on an enemy ship continuously cloaking and decloaking in the midst of
battle.
It's probably not possible at this stage to declare for certain that /-taH/
MUST be used on pronouns in "to be" constructions.
David
Stardate 4035.3