tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 22 13:15:26 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: <<'e'>> DIpvaD tammey je

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

Dar'Qang:
> >It's not clear to me from the description whether or not the
> >previous-sentence pronoun 'e' can be used in a to-be construction.
> >Example:
> >  Duj vIQaw' 'e' 'oH qech'e' vIqelbogh.
> >  "The idea that I am considering is to destroy the ship."

QeS lagh:
>Literally "I destroy the ship. That is the idea which I consider".

No.  Literally it's "I destroy the ship. The idea which I consider is that."

The noun phrase "the idea which I consider" is the subject, not the predicate.

>It seems
>logical in both original Klingon and English translation, and as far as I
>have seen, the pronoun-as-verb construct is a full-fledged verb (albeit an
>"irregular" one).

The reason it doesn't work is because {'e'} "that" is an object pronoun, 
which means that it has to be the object of a transitive verb.  As Okrand 
explains:

   Klingon has two special pronouns, {'e'} and {net}, which refer to
   the previous sentence as a whole. They are used primarily, though
   not exclusively, with verbs of thinking or observation (such as
   "know", "see"). They are always treated as the object of the verb,
   and the verb always takes a prefix indicating a third-person singular
   object.

Although {'oH} can act as a verb, it acts as linking verb or copula; it's 
not transitive.  The complement of {'e'} is the predicate; it is not an 
object - that is, it doesn't receive the action of the pronoun-as-verb 
since "to be" isn't an action verb.  IOW what's to the left of the 
pronoun-as-verb is a predicate noun, not an object noun.  Using {'e'} in 
this position would make a pronoun the predicate of a pronoun.

>Since there's no explicit canon that I can think of to support the idea,
>though (Voragh, can you help me on this?),

There are no examples AFAIK of {'e'} used in this manner.

>                                   it might be better just to say
>{Duj vIQaw' 'e' vIqel} "I am considering destroying the ship".

This idea is much simpler, not to mention grammatical.

>                                                            By the same
>token, the verb-centric grammar of Klingon might well frown on having a
>pronoun-as-verb as the main verb in a sentence as complex as this and, quite
>frankly, it grates on my ear a little bit. But that might just be me; I try
>not to use the pronominal verb in anything much more complex than {tlhIngan
>maH}. {{:D If I saw {Duj vIQaw' 'e' 'oH qech'e' vIqelbogh} in a piece of
>connected Klingon text, I don't think I'd have a real problem with
>understanding it.

The fact that you could figure out what it means doesn't mean that it's 
grammatical - either descriptively or prescriptively.  Native speakers can 
often understand mangled grammar, particularly from foreigners.  (Though, 
to be sure, some natives are better at this than others.)  At the very 
least, it would be stylistically highly marked, as in English "I am he" 
(i.e. I am the person you've been talking about).



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level