tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 09 13:51:57 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Rovers
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Rovers
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:31:50 -0400
Sorry to be so sporadic. Still dealing with technical problems. I'm
starting to sound like HoD Qanqor...
The subject of rovers came up recently, noting that {-Ha'} was a special
case. Actually, I don't think it is a special case. All rovers have one
thing in common: They don't follow the normal rules of verb suffixes.
Instead, each of them has its own rule:
-Ha': always comes first after the verb
-Qo': always comes last after all other suffixes
-be': follows whatever it negates.
In fact, the most controversial of the three is the most commonly used:
{-be'}. The controversial aspect is that most people, including myself,
think that it negates the syllable it follows (be that a suffix or a verb
root). This makes for a nice, clear grammar without stupidly unnecessary
ambiguity.
Others have argued, with rock-solid canon behind them that it negates
EVERYTHING in a sentence that it follows. Not just the suffix in front of
it. Not just ALL the suffixes in front of it. Not just the verb and all the
suffixes in front of it. Everything, including any relative clauses,
adverbials or whatever else that exists to the left of {-be'}.
I don't like that idea, and I don't find it particularly useful, but there
is solid canon to back it. I can't site the canon because I've finally
succeeded in blocking it from my memory and I don't really want to have to
repeat that effort.
I personally take it to be one of those ideas that I can quite effectively
ignore and speak Klingon quite well, and if I stumble into a weird-seeming
sentence with {-be'} in it, I can just roll my eyes and sneer, "Oh. One of
THOSE," and continue as if it hadn't happened, all while avoiding the
temptation to correct the grammar of the offending sentence. Just let it
pass...
charghwI'