tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 04 03:45:21 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Basic grammar question

David Trimboli (david@trimboli.name) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



This doesn't seem to have gone through. Let me try again.

David Trimboli wrote:
> Qang qu'wI' wrote:
> 
>> I would be interested if you could cite specifically, but just as a matter
>> of interest. I'm not proposing that anything other than {maleng qorDu'wIj
>> jIH je} is the correct Klingon.
> 
> It's hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. Nowhere in the canon 
> is there any example of conjoining a noun and a pronoun, but neither is 
> there any situation in the canon where doing so would seem to be 
> appropriate. My knowledge of the canon is, however, rusty; if anyone can 
> cite an example of a noun-pronoun conjunction, or of anything that goes 
> out of its way to avoid one, please post it.
> 
> One potential rule against conjoining nouns and pronouns is on TKD p. 
> 52: "Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added 
> clarity. They are not required." Using the first person pronoun in {jIH 
> qorDu'wIj je} isn't done for emphasis or added clarity. There is thus no 
> provision in the stated rules for conjoining nouns and pronouns.
> 
> On the other hand, Such an interpretation would also invalidate 
> sentences like {ghaHvo' yIt nuch} "The coward walked away from him." And 
> pronouns are explicitly allowed to get {-vaD} on TKD p. 180.
> 
> Don't forget the warning of TKD Section 2:
> 
>     It is not possible, in a brief guide such as this, to describe the
>     grammar of Klingon completely. What follows is only a sketch or
>     outline of Klingon grammar. Although a good many of the fine points
>     are not covered, the sketch will allow the student of Klingon to
>     figure out what a Klingon is saying and to respond in an
>     intelligible, though somewhat brutish manner. Most Klingons will
>     never know the difference.
> 
> I believe that the possibility of a third person plural beyond {maH} was 
> simply never considered and never examined. And since the canon has 
> never needed it, we don't have any information one way or the other. It 
> is, however, a very common device in personal discussions, something 
> that the canon has very little of.
> 
> Now, before you go taking this as evidence for your theoretical *{maleng 
> qorDu'wIj jIH je}, answer this: according to your model, how would you 
> translate "The captain gave me and the other officers medals"? Using our 
> customary methods, I can think of two distinct ways (not counting 
> variations with the prefix trick).
> 
> SuStel
> Stardate 7919.8
> 






Back to archive top level