tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 15 20:02:39 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

David Trimboli ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

QeS 'utlh wrote:
> ghItlhpu' SuStel, ja':
> You've outlined a good argument here, so I won't requote it in detail
> (otherwise I'll be here all week!). I just have a problem with using
> {SoH 'Iv} as evidence for an anomalous word order here.

I didn't cite it as evidence. I said my analysis could explain {SoH 'Iv}.

> I see no problem with {SoH 'Iv} for the same reason as I see no
> problem with {yIH nuq} "what is a tribble?". Okrand provided that
> example in a post to the MSN newsgroup that "[q]uestion words (in this
> case, nuq "what?") function the same way pronouns do in questions
> with "to be" in the English translations" (MSN posting 12-12-1996). In this
> case, the way I interpret it is that it isn't {SoH} that is acting as the
> pronoun; it's {'Iv}.

Sure, that works too. Ultimately, I don't think it matters. I think 
maybe even the Klingons don't know which one it is.

> Going back to the original thought, I've since had the idea that maybe
> {naDev} could be shifted as an intentional ungrammaticality in order to
> emphasise {naDev} ("I don't know HERE, I don't know THIS place where
> I am"). Since we have an example of an adverbial shifted to post-object
> position, also maybe for emphasis ({'e' reH lunIDtaH} "they always keep
> trying that" from S26, where an emphatic reading is also supported by
> the illegal {-taH} on a verb following {'e'}), perhaps such shifting
> sometimes happens for time and location stamps as well - which, for all
> intents and purposes, function essentially as adverbs do anyway.

Certainly possible. As I indicated in my original analysis, I did *not* 
have any convincing reason for this.

I'll tell you what I *really* think happened here: relative clauses with 
a subject are, I think, more common than with an object, and Okrand put 
{jIHtaHbogh} before the "subject" as is more common. Newbies do this all 
the time (and he certainly was a newbie when he wrote the dictionary!).

> That's just an alternative analysis, and it might not be right; your
> explanation works just as well. Further, yours might explain why {-'e'}
> must, in {ta' Hol} at least, appear on the subject of a copulative
> construction when there's an explicit subject present.

Note that in my terminology, the final noun of a copula is *not* a 
subject; it is only a topic. The copula has a syntax all its own that is 
not Object-Verb-Subject; it is Copulative-Pronoun-Topic.

Yes, I know Okrand calls it a subject in TKD. He misnames a lot of 
things in the dictionary, and the grammar presented is primitive. All 
subtleties are not accounted for.

Stardate 7956.6

Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.

Back to archive top level