tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 04 17:28:46 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Basic grammar question
ja' Qang qu'wI':
> One of the things that originally attracted me to tlhIngan Hol was
> the idea
> that MO drew upon knowledge of a variety of different languages,
> and (I
> believe it's been stated somewhere) had the specific goal of making
> tlhIngan
> Hol to be 'un-English'.
I think it would be more fair to say that he tried not to take too
much from any one language. I remember his saying that whenever he
found that happening, he'd pick something completely different for
the next choice he needed to make. That said, for the first few
choices -- word order and core word-forming rules, for example -- he
obviously did intentionally go for the least English-like structures.
> What spontaneously occurred to me in the case that I originally
> posted was
> the feeling that I really construct {maleng qorDu'wIj jIH je} using
> English
> grammar, save for the re-ordering that comes from Klingon grammar.
Is that really the case? I wonder how and when you feel the {ma-}
gets added. When I say something like that, I'm undeniably using
Klingon grammar. The verb is {maleng} from the beginning of my
turning the thought into words.
> There are really two avenues that Klingon could have had stronger
> distinctions from English in the above.
>
> 1)
> It could possibly have worked that when the prefix {ma-} is used,
> since that
> automatically indicates that the speaker is included in the
> subject, {jIH
> je} could be inferred and added to whatever the subject was (if
> needed):
>
> **bad Klingon: ** {maleng targh} "the targh and I travel"
Ecch. Just my personal reaction. :-) This avenue has a major "just
because I said so" feel to it. Why {jIH je} and not {maH je}, for
instance?
I'd actually interpret this to mean "we targs travel".
> 2)
>
> For nouns that indicate a group, it could have been possible for
> Klingons to
> consider the group first person in some cases (or as desired by the
> speaker)
> when the possessive is used.
>
> **bad Klingon: **{tuqwIj juquvmoH} "you honor my house (us)"
>
> Which would be different than the way we would normally think using
> English
> grammar, where we speak of the group we belong to in 3rd person.
Why should the possessive make any difference? If you're going to
try to force the otherwise third-person noun to accommodate the
prefix's first-person mold, it shouldn't matter whether that noun has
a type 4 suffix or not.
However, we already have a customary interpretation for the mismatch
of verb prefix with a third-person object. The prefix-implied object
instead takes on the role normally marked by the suffix {-vaD}. It's
been dubbed the "prefix trick", but it's perfectly valid and
officially sanctioned grammar.
There's no similar reinterpretation for a mismatched subject. My
immediate near-automatic internalization of Klingon grammar settles
comfortably into treating the third-person subject as either first or
second person when that's what the verb prefix indicates. I think it
works that way for me because the prefix comes first, and my mental
translation from words to idea is thus primed to accept whatever
follows as an appropriately-"personed" word.
-- ghunchu'wI'