tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 09 19:56:25 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Prefix and noun agreement (was: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu})

Doq (

I've read several votes on this, so I'll add mine. I'm suspecting  
that SuStel will like my vote. I think that {qorDu' reghom qorDu'} is  
grammatically wrong. Yes, you can figure out what it means, but...  
Okay. "Blue dot finger pain electric socket stupid fingernail file  
I'm sitting in the dark." You can probably figure out what that  
means, but it doesn't make it grammatical.

If I want to say, "My family meets your family," the right way to do  
it is with the noun suffix, not the verb prefix.

As I understand it, the "prefix trick" works in one very specific set  
of circumstances:

1. The sentence needs to include an explicit third person direct object.
2. That same sentence needs a verb prefix that indicates first or  
second person for the direct object.

The "trick" then allows you to understand that the verb prefix is  
indicating the indirect object, and not the direct object.

I do not know of any circumstances where disagreement between the  
subject indicated by the verb prefix and the explicit subject can  
disagree. What would that indicate, anyway? "Indirect subject"? It's  
gibberish, to me, anyway.

This idea of somehow indicating that a group can be identified as  
including a first or second person by using an explicit group noun  
(third person, since explicit nouns tend to be third person, unless  
they are proper nouns naming someone who happens to be first or  
second person) and then using a verb prefix that disagrees with that  
third person... That's not merely an unusual idea. It's just, well,  

There's nothing in TKD that says you can do it. There's nothing in  
canon that says you can do it. So far as I know, Okrand has never  
suggested that you could do it. Maltz never said you could do it. It  
just looks like someone grabbed a thread from the fabric of the  
prefix trick and took off running with it, unravelling the sweater,  
so to speak.

Some people may like the prefix trick, while others hate it. At this  
point, I think it is a matter of taste. But this whole {qorDu' reghom  
qorDu'} and {maleng targhwIj} thing is not Klingon language by any  
description that Okrand has given us.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. There's no wiggle room  
here. It crosses the line where wrong is just wrong... unless, of  
course, Okrand says otherwise, revealing some previously unknown truth.


On Dec 6, 2007, at 8:07 AM, David Trimboli wrote:

> Alan Anderson wrote:
>> The odd thing is that I don't have a big problem treating it as a
>> first person subject when the verb prefix asks me to.
> That *is* odd. What would you make of this:
>     qorDu' reghom qorDu'
> SuStel
> Stardate 7930.3

Back to archive top level