tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 17 08:47:58 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:
> jItlhobpu', jIjatlh:
>> Although if you accept that a type 5 noun suffix attaches to whole 
>> phrases in that way, what do you believe is wrong with {qach 
>> vIleghboghDaq}?
> mujang SuStel, ja':
>> The former is a name; the latter is not.
> I think that interpretation dodges the issue rather than explaining
> it. {qep'a' wejDIch} might be a specific {qep'a'} and might be a
> name, but it's also a perfectly grammatical Klingon phrase ("the
> third conference"), and although we have no evidence either way, I
> tend towards the interpretation that doesn't require setting up a
> special grammatical rule for proper names.

I KNOW it's a name. It was in an e-mail addressed to me, in which we 
were discussing qep'a' wejDIch by name.

> I used to think that the ordinals were true adjectives (which Klingon
>  mostly lacks). Now, the universality of the passage from TKD that
> you cite is somewhat questionable (since numbers of repetition are
> adverbs, and not nouns), but the existence of a noun {cha'DIch}
> "second (in a duel)" backs it up, so it seems the ordinals probably
> *are* nouns, and as such might be more literally translated as "first
> one", "second one", "third one", and so forth (and fifth for that
> matter!).

Ordinals are numbers (chuvmey) with a special suffix on them. In a 
sentence, we are told, numbers act as nouns, so even a number with the 
ordinal suffix is a noun. But it's USED as an adjective, not an adverb; 
the ordinal always modifies a noun. Unless, of course, it's used as a 
noun instead, like we have with {cha'DIch}.

But that's not to say that ordinals follow the rules of Klingon 
adjectives. Klingon doesn't HAVE adjectives; it has verbs and {chuvmey} 
acting like nouns that act like adjectives. Just because the locative 
noun suffix migrates to the end of a verb acting as an adjective doesn't 
PROVE that it'll do the same thing to an ordinal (but that's where my 
money would go).

Relative clauses also act like adjectives in a broad sense. They 
describe the head noun. This is where I think the term "adjective" 
breaks down: I seriously doubt that type 5 noun suffixes would migrate 
to the end of a relative clause just because it's adjectival in nature.

Stardate 7960.8

Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.

Back to archive top level