tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 26 15:59:38 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus
ghItlh "...Paul" <[email protected]>:
> I would like for you to explain *how* you thing /yIQong/ and /yIQongchoH/
> differ significantly. I realize there are many constructs/concepts in
> Klingon that don't have a good English *equivalent*, but that does not
> mean that they cannot be *explained* in English.
Sure. {yIQong} means just that, "Sleep!". {yIQongchoH} means "Change your state
from what you are doing and begin sleeping!". If I'm standing next to someone
who is falling asleep I would use {yIQong! yIQong}, I'm not going to use
{yIQongchoH} because their state is already of one who is attempting to fall
asleep.
Truthfully {Qong} is a bad verb to pick, because no matter how much you try and
order someone to do it, very few people can make themselves sleep.
A more useful example would be something like {yIqet} and {yIqetchoH}. The
difference here is obvious. You can yell at someone who is already running
{yIqet} but it makes no sense to yell {yIqetchoH} because their state is
already {qet}. I would suggest that {-choH} is useful when your telling someone
to stop their current action and change to the new one. Another example would
be {yIwIv} and {yIwIvchoH}. I would say {yIwIvchoH} to someone who is on the
other side of the room watering the flowers, but I wouldn't say it when I'm
pestering them to make up their mind, at that point I would use {tugh! yIwIv!}.
Thats why I say that {yI-} does not have the built in idea of {-choH}. If it did
it would limit the language and would reduce the number of ideas that could be
transfered from one person to another.
As a side note I belive there are concepts that can be concieved of that are
either impossible or nearly impossible to explain in English, they just don't
get seen due to the lack of native speakers.
> Ah, but you *can* explain what /Daghar/ means in English, you just can't
> get away with a literal translation. So my question still stands, really
Sure I can, since I had to do it over the weekend. {Daghar} is said to you when
your conducting diplomacy and the he/she/it over their is the person who is
recieving this conducted diplomacy.
> -- do the imperative prefixes connote an intent for a verb to "start". In
> fact, would you EVER use /-choH/ on a verb if you put an imperative prefix
> on it?
No, they don't connote an intent for a verb to "start". Yes, I would use {-choH}
on a verb with an imperative prefix. I would use it when I want them to start
doing the verb (I'm imagineing a dill sarg telling his troops to march when
then are already marching... {-choH} just doesn't fit in there).
qurgh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For a free wizage.net web based email address, email me!
- References:
- core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus
- Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus
- Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus
- Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus
- Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus