tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 18 15:28:33 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?

DloraH ([email protected]) [Hol po'wI']

> I would interpret {naDev tlhIngan maH} just as you quoted, "Here, we
> are Klingons", but I would interpret {naDav maH tlhIngan'e'} as "The
> Klingons here are us".
> 
> For the puchpa''e' case, if you were in a circumstance in which you
> were being informed about  that screen in the corner with the bucket
> behind it, you might hear {naDev puchpa' 'oH}  "it is the bathroom
> here."  So substituting the question word {nuqDaq puchpa' 'oH} I think
> could be interpreted as "Where is it the bathroom"  in the sense of
> "at what location would 'it' be (become, serve as) the bathroom."


* jIQub vaj jIH.

In these type of sentences like [nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'] the pronoun seems to be acting kind of like
"is"/"does exist"

* 'oH puchpa''e' - the toilet is/exists.
nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e' - the toilet is/exists where?
Duj 'etDaq 'oH puchpa''e' - the toilet is/exists at the head of the ship.

'oHbe' puchpa''e' - the toilet is not/exists not.
Sure, people would most likely use tu'be'lu' or something, because the 'oHbe' method sounds as
marked as the english.

What I find odd about all this is usually when canon locates something with a pronoun we tend to see
pronoun-taH.
pa'wIjDaq jIHtaH
pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'

Hmm, I also found:
pa' jIHpu'be'
It doesn't have -taH, but it does still have a type 7.


So, I would have expected [nuQDaq 'oHtaH puchpa''e'].


DloraH

Back to archive top level