tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 27 08:06:09 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
{Qong} and other unattested nouns
QeS:
>Some verbs can be used as nouns, but expanding this to include
>every verb in the language is a bit premature. If any verb could be used as
>a noun (and vice versa) in Klingon, there would be no need for an explicit
>distinction between verbs and nouns [...]
That was Glen Proechel's position. IIRC he would often use verbs for nouns
(and vice versa) when he needed them in his many translations. He
justified himself both theoretically (it was appropriate because of the
many homophonous verb/noun pairs and Okrand simply didn't list them all in
the limited TKD glossary, just the words he needed to translate movie
dialogue) and practically (we needed the extra forms if we were ever to use
the language practically rather than just as a toy.) He was widely
criticized for this but, in true Klingon style, {ghIlab ghewmey buSQo'} (he
refused to pay heed to glob flies) as the proverb advises.
>{Qong} "to sleep" is known to only be a verb, for instance; IIRC Okrand
>has explicitly stated that there is no known noun *{Qong} "sleep".
True, though he kept the possibility open. Okrand wrote on
msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand 6/18/1997):
[{QongDaq} "bed"] could be a normal compound noun - but the important
word there is "could": It could be a compound noun IF both {Qong} and
{Daq} are nouns. We know that {Daq} "place" is a noun; we know that
{Qong} is a verb ("sleep"); we don't know that {Qong} (presumably
"sleep" or "sleeping") is a noun. Maybe it is - but until we see it
as a noun in its own right (that is, in a place in a sentence where
nouns occur and in a construction where it's not attached to {Daq})
will we know for sure. Until that time, it's a good hypothesis, but
not a done deal ... a word like {QongDaq} is evidence that at an
earlier stage in the language, there may have been a noun {Qong}
(meaning "sleep" or something similar). Or maybe there was a verb
suffix {-Daq} meaning "place where one does X". On the other hand,
you may have uncovered evidence that there is currently a noun {Qong}
- it just hasn't been attested anywhere else yet, so we should keep
our eyes peeled. But without further evidence, it's a guess.
Clearly he was considering Proechel's liberal approach but wanted to give
the matter further thought. Also, note his clever suggestion in
accommodating both schools of thought: {Qong} may have been a noun in
"earlier stage in the language", but it's no longer used in the "modern"
(24th century) stage.
There's another candidate: {naj} "dream". Although we only know it as a
verb in TKD, it was used as a noun in the VOYAGER episode "Barge of the
Dead". One of the passengers on the Barge of the Dead tells B'Ellana,
"That was the {naj}--the 'dream before dying'. When we can't accept that
we've died we create the illusion of life to hold on to." (This was
ironic, as B'Ellana may have been having a dream or hallucination herself
while she was unconscious in Sick Bay.) The opinions of the Paramount
writers have little value on this list, but Okrand generally accommodates
them where possible; indeed, many words from various Trek episodes were
added to and even explained away in KGT (inter alia, {parmaqqay}
*par'Machkai*). In the case of {naj}, it would be no problem at all as
it's completely consistent with other verb/noun pairs.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons