tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 14 13:54:28 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "ser" and "estar" (to be)

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

SuStel:
> >> wa' rep ret jImej; DaH naDev jIHqa'.
> >> I left an hour ago; now I'm here again.
>
>/-qa'/ refers to a resumption of a previously discontinued state.

It does?  Okrand on {-qa}:

"Using this suffix implies that an ACTION HAD BEEN TAKING PLACE, then it 
stopped, and then it began again" (TKD 37, emphasis added).

>If I say /jIQuchqa'/, it means I resume being happy.  Continuity after the
>discontinuity is implied.

Yes; discontinuity of an action, not a state.  A state of being (i.e. 
Okrand's "qualities") is not an action; it cannot be performed.  It's only 
a condition that's either true or not in the opinion of the speaker.

>(/-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'/.

In this case you're right as {mej} is an action verb, so you can say 
{jImejqa'} - you performed the action of leaving again.  But "being 
someplace" is not an action.  If you can find an example of {-qa'} being 
used on a bare quality, I'll have to reconsider.

> > 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.

But neither is it license to invent or extend the rules willy nilly in 
order to replicate features of English.  (For the old-timers, that was Glen 
Proechel's approach to Klingon, especially WRT vocabulary.)

> > Is {jIH} "I am" really an *action*?
>
>/jIH/ isn't a verb, but you can use verb suffixes on it.

Only certain suffixes, not all of them.

>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*?

I don't think that *{'IHqa'} is possible.  To turn a quality ("be X") into 
an action ("become X"), you need to add {-moH} or {-choH}.  Thus, after 
your accident the plastic surgeon {Du'IHqa'moH} leaving you {bI'IH}.

>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.

Yes, it should.  Although he doesn't state it in so many words, Okrand 
clearly distinguishes in practice between the two types of Klingon 
verbs:  qualities and actions.  This is one reason you don't see {-chu'} on 
a quality.  Ditto for the perfective suffixes {-pu'} and {-ta'}.  Note 
Okrand's descriptions of these suffixes:

{-chu'} "indicates ACTION IS PERFORMED absolutely properly" (PK)

{-pu'} "indicates that AN ACTION IS COMPLETED. It is often translated by 
the English present perfect ('have DONE something)." (TKD)

{-ta'} "is used when an ACTIVITY was deliberately undertaken, the 
implication being that someone set out TO DO SOMETHING and in fact did it" 
(TKD)

By your argument, you should be able to say *{jIQuchpu'} "I have been 
happy, I used to be happy" (but I'm not now) or even {jIQuchta'}.

>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.

ghunchu'wI':
>>It's actually possible to declare for certain that such constructions do
>>*not* require {-taH}.  Doesn't anyone remember how to ask where the
>>bathroom is?
>>
>>   nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'
>>
>>TKD's appendix also includes {nuqDaq 'oH Qe' QaQ'e'}.

Hmm... I had obviously forgotten about these two!  (Can anyone think of any 
others?)

Interestingly, they both contain {nuqDaq 'oH} "where is".  I wonder if the 
absence of {-taH} has to do with the fact the speaker does not know the 
location, and thus cannot say where it (continuously) is or isn't.

This deserves more thought.


-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level