tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 29 06:02:54 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?

ngabwI' ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Raik Lorenz" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:33 PM
Subject: KLBC: (?) interrogative suffix on imperatives?

paSqu'mo' QInwIj, jItlhIj. tagha' HoS vIghajqa'.

Sorry this took so long. I have power again.

Now, others have answered this (well, I might add) already, but I will also 
weigh in on this, b/c it was marked KLBC.

>I wondered, wether the following constructions would work, maybe even in 
>the
> way suggested beneath each example:
>
> ?*HurDaq targh yItlhap'a'?
> Bring the targ out, will you? / Will you bring the targ out?
>
> ?*HurDaq targh yItlhap qar'a'?
> Bring the targ out, okay?

Interrogatives and imperatives appear to be like oil and water. It just 
doesn't make any sense.
I read your second sentence as "Take the targh outside, right?"

I agree with Alan. It doesn't work.

> And I don't mean stuff like:
>
> DaH HurDaq targh DatlhapqangHa'chugh, ghe''orDaq DaghoSbej 'e' bIHeghDI'!

OK, let's start with the grammar issues in the above sentence:
{-Ha'}, according to TKD, pg 47, only appears immediately after the verb 
itself. If you wish to negate the {-qang} portion of the verb, use {-be'}:
{DaH HurDaq targh Datlhapqangbe'chugh} "If you are not willing to take the 
targ out"

Use {'e'} to indicate a sentence-as-object, not to link subordinate clauses:
{pab mu'tlheghvam 'e' vIQub} "I think this sentence is grammatical"
lit. "This sentence is grammatical. I think it."

Note that use of {'e'} indicates the presence of an object, so the verb 
prefix needs to indicate one:
It's {'e' *vI*Qub}, not {'e' jIQub}.

The use of {-DI'} "as soon as, when" already indicates a subordinate clause. 
You don't have to do anything more to the clause to link it to the sentence:
{ghe''orDaq DaghoSbej bIHeghDI'} "You will definitely approach Grethor when 
you die."
You could also use {jaH} "to go":
{ghe''or DajaHbej} "You will definitely go to Grethor"

So your sentence should read something like:
{HurDaq targh Datlhapqangbe'chugh, ghe''or DajaHbej bIHeghDI'}
"If you are unwilling to take the targ out, you will definitely go to 
Grethor when you die."

Now, on to your question:
> I know that normally {HurDaq targh yItlhap!} is absolutely sufficient, but
> imagine a stressed {SoSoy} and an obnoxious, lazy {puqloDHom}. Would she
> maybe have other possibilities to give the utterance more emphasis 
> (excpting
> extra {'e'} constructions)?

Sure she does. She can use the invective, {jay'}, found in TKD, pg 177. It 
intensifies the sentence, and turns the whole thing into a curse:
{HurDaq targh yItlhap jay'!} "Take the frickin' targ out!"

> But the point I really out on is: Can the type-9 interrogative {'a'} be 
> used
> on any imperative constructions?
> Ferociously wild speculations are as welcome as canonic answers. ;)

No, {-'a'} doesn't seem to work oa an imperative. Come to think of it, I'm 
not sure *any* type 9 makes much sense on an imperative. Examples like 
{yItlhapbogh} "Which take it!" and {yItlhapDI'} "As soon as take it!" just 
don't parse.

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org
HovpoH 702103.3

Back to archive top level