tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 13 21:09:43 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mangpu' or negh?

Shane MiQogh ([email protected]) 

QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:
    What's wrong with having "be afraid of" as only a verb suffix rather than a 
full verb? It makes sense: normally, you're not just afraid in general, 
you're afraid *of* something. If that something is a noun, then you use the 
verb {ghIj}: {DughIj targh} "the targ scares you, you're afraid of the 
targ". If that something is a verb, then you use the suffix {-vIp}: 
{tlhIngan Dargh tlhutlhvIp} "he's afraid to drink Klingon tea". In English, 
we can't even say that we're afraid of something represented by a verb; we 
have to turn the verb into a nominalisation or infinitive first.

>and also is modified by the rovers.

Yes, but you can't say *{vIpbe'} "he is not afraid"; {-vIp} has to be 
chained to a verb. That's why it's a suffix, not a word.

>I'm talking about writing based on what we say... Tell me... How do
>you propose we say the suffixes as the same word, rather than
>seperate words that come after the verb or noun? I'm sure it would
>sound as seperate words...

Or as one long word, depending upon your point of view.

>Requiring our klingon experience to tell us where the word ends.
   
  Actually, when one thinks about it, in english "to be afraid" is actually a noun. Putting "be" infront of an english verb dosn't make it infinitive... There are no infinitives in english. Which is the oposite in kligon, they are always infinitive.
   
  I am afraid of the bear.
   
  I = Pronoun - Referance to self
   
  am = verb (to be) - This means the next thing *MUS* be some kind of object
   
  afraid = Theoretical noun (for this example) - The object i am
   
  of = the causer
   
  the = pointless thing we call an article
   
  bear = object
   
  Theoretically could be translated: I am the thing (called afraid) of the bear.
   
  But, of course, because english is one of the most slaughtered languages out there...
   
  The proper way would be "The bear scares me". This makes a nice, even, Noun verb noun...
   
  "I am afraid" alone should be a complete sentance, but is not a complete idea. theoretically also, afraid shouldn't exist. But of course, afraid is like a few ideas in english which make absolutely no sence... I'm sure many foreigners would have trouble learning afraid in english. That's why some languages like french use it as an object. Example: J'ai peur. (I have fear.) Which in english means "i am afraid", but is also incomplete...
   
  I beleive okrand made klingon have suffixes instead of individual words, because Object-Verb-Subject is a rather uncommon concept. Making a language like this, should make it easier to learn. I beleive it's also to keep from doing what many do in english, comming up with an ungodly amount of adverbs and ADJs. It would eliminate abuse of the language such as saying the same thing over and over again like: "The really really really really old dude is still alive." I beleive that he made them suffixes, that way he could force us to use more complete ideas, sentances, and of course, use less of the same thing over and over again. Also, it would aide in getting the right suffixes in the right places... like in the sentance "If he left before i came here, i wouldn't have killed him." I'll just chop this down to "if he left before i came here" for the example. "mejpa' vIHoHpu'chugh." It literally translates to "I wouldn't have killed him if he left before I came." Which sounds a
 little more proper even in english.
   
  I beleive he made it so we used suffixes, so we wouldn't abuse klingon gramatically and inject our culture into klingon, like we do our own languages. Also, it makes it much easier to learn by people of languages that use different ways to say things than we do. -vIp would be referancing the subject as an object that has fear in an action which the verb represents. You have to remember, when you learn so many languages, you tend to notice why just about every language is so hard to learn. Based on my theory, one could say Okrand developed klingon, not only for why we know, but to have a language that would be of "proper universal grammar." If anyone hasn't noticed, we all seem to express incomplete ideas and sentances and such. It seems a bit intresting to me that in english and almost every other language the shy little girl could say "i... i... i..." while in klingon, we would say "qa.. qa.. qa..." or "ba... ba... ba..." we seem to have a better clue what she's too shy
 to say. We seem to have much much more complete ideas...

   
  >>Whyshouldwenotwriteoursentenceslikethisbecausethisishowwewouldsayitwhenspeakingoutloud?

  Bceesuae we can raed asomlt any wrod as lnog as the fsrit and lsat lrettes are the smae. We reiuqre taht the wrods bemoce searpate.
   
  When you sound out a word to say it, you actually (in your mind) break up the word into sylobols... We should learn from the japanese, one letter per sylobol rather than a letter per sound. If you're not fluent in klingon, i have a feeling it takes you a while to read aloud each word.
   
  >>To distinguish words in speech, our minds often depend upon suprasegmental 
>>cues like stress, metre and intonation to distinguish individual word 
>>boundaries. Klingon is no different, although the low rate of homophony and 
>>the limited syllable structure of Klingon certainly make it a lot easier to 
>>distinguish word boundaries by segmental, as well as suprasegmental, means.

  I thought klingon was supposed to have an unpredictable stress all over the word... From what i gathered from TKD, it's supposed to sound like you're constipated...

		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1&cent;/min.

Back to archive top level