tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 06 20:09:05 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Basic grammar question

Qang qu'wI' ([email protected]) 

On Dec 5, 2007 4:54 PM, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> So now why do you readily use {yaSpu'vaD jIHvaD je} where before you
> were hesitant to write {targh jIH je}?
>

For {yaSpu'vaD jIHvaD je}, nothing else in the sentence would otherwise
indicate that {jIH} is a beneficiary.  It adds fully independent
information.

For {maleng targh jIH je}, it's already known that the speaker is part of
the subject.  The {jIH}, however, can't be viewed as entirely redundant
because - as ghunchu'wI' pointed out - there is an ambiguity between {maleng
targh maH je} and {maleng targh jIH je} if Klingon were to allow one to omit
the {jIH}.

On the other hand, the original {maleng qorDu'wIj jIH je} seems to tippy-toe
very close to a situation in which the personal pronoun {jIH} is perfectly
redundant yet absolutely required.


> As an aside, I find it interesting that when you combine the two
> beneficiaries, you reverse their order. Your beneficiaries in your first
> example are reversed in your second example. I wonder if you're
> reversing them because of some notion that in Klingon things are
> backwards?
>
>
No, I have some notion that in English things are backwards. {{;-)>

It's interesting that you noticed that.  I did write it the other way first,
and then switched.  The reason is a style sense of preferring to have the
two nouns marked with {-vaD} together, rather than separated by {latlh}.  If
it had been just "the officers and me" rather than "the other officers and
me", I might have followed the order of the original sentence without
thinking about it.

-- 
Qang qu'wI'

Back to archive top level