tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 27 12:38:40 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2, etc.
mIq'ey:
> >> qatoy'taH wa'ben 'e' vItagh
> >>
> >>This seems (to me) to mean exactly what we want it to mean. Are there
> >>objections to it from a grammatical (or, for that matter, any other) point
> >>of view?
Voragh:
> >I like this, but the time-stamp should precede the verb:
> >
> >wa' ben qatoy'taH 'e' vItagh.
> >"I began serving you (continuously) a year ago"
mIq'ey:
>But why? The timestamp applies to the main verb: it's the beginning, not
>the continuous service, that's located a year in the past. (I.e., I see
>the meaning as "I serve you continuously; a year ago I began it", not "A
>year ago I serve you continuously; I began it.") Although I've lost track
>of my copy of TKD (temporarily, I hope), I'm sure I've seen a number of
>examples of main clauses where an adverb precedes {'e'}. Are these
>wrong? Is there a special restriction on adverbials of time, parallel to
>the restriction on the use of aspectual suffixes?
You've hit on one of the problematic points of Klingon grammar. You're
right: There are several examples with an adverbial or a time- or
place-stamp in the first (or "object") sentence. E.g.:
logh veQDaq bachchugh, yoH 'e' toblaHbe' SuvwI'
Shooting space garbage is no test of a warrior's mettle. (ST5 notes)
HoD, naDev maH 'e' luSovbe'
Captain, they don't know we're here. (ST5 notes)
nIteb Qob qaD jup 'e' chaw'be' SuvwI'
A warrior does not let a friend face danger alone. (TKW)
DujDaj HubtaHvIS Hegh 'e' tul Hoch tlhIngan
To die defending his ship is the hope of every Klingon. (TKW)
DaH che' ghawran. yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh
janluq pIqarD HoD.
Gowron currently presides, named leader of the High Council by Captain
Jean-Luc
Picard, who was acting as Arbiter of Succession. (S25)
naDev bIQumqa' 'e' vItul.
[untranslated] (st.expert-forum_okrand, MO to SuStel 11/96)
but only one known example where the adverbial belongs to the second
sentence (the same clause as {'e'}):
DuraS tuq tlhIngan yejquv patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH DuraS be'nI'pu'
lurSa' be'etor je.
The sisters of the House of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor, are constantly
seeking a
higher standing for the House of Duras within the Klingon High
Council. (S26)
{luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH} is a problem. Notice that the second verb has an
aspect suffix, which we are told is not allowed in a sentence-as-object (SAO):
In complex sentences of this type, the second verb never takes an aspect
suffix. (TKD 66)
Because of that, some have wondered whether Okrand just made a careless
mistake - hey, we've all done it! - making the entire sentence
ungrammatical. If so, the adverbial {reH} may also be misplaced. But
assuming S26 is otherwise correct, {'e'} may precede the adverbial in the
second sentence because, in addition to being a direct object pronoun, it
*may* also be acting as if it were a sort of semi-conjunction separating
the two clauses. This is particularly useful in speech. In writing you
can, of course, go back and re-read a long, complex sentence. Be aware
that other Klingonists disagree with my view of {'e'}.
BTW, We have seen another post-TKD example of an aspect suffix on the
second verb. (See the S25 example above.) Okrand's absolute rule may need
to be revised slightly to "rarely" instead of "never". IOW from a
prescriptive viewpoint it's not allowed, but from a descriptive viewpoint
it is occasionally heard - similar to the elitist aversion to double
negatives or "ain't" in English.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons