tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 27 12:58:57 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <<'e'>> DIpvaD tammey je
At 03:15 PM 3/22/2004, Voragh wrote:
>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.
Ok, this was what I was looking for, some definite indication that it is/is
not grammatical. Thanks.
One of the interesting things about this hobby for a non-linguist such
myself is learning about
things like 'copula' and 'linking verbs'.
>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).
or maybe "I am him", since the 'e' carries a direct-object connotation.
Dar'Qang
bItaghbe'chugh bIrInbe'ba'