tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 16 19:19:49 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Positioning for emphasis

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' QeS 'utlh:

> Although we have no canon examples of {-'e'}-subject fronting, I  
> don't see why this shift in position could occur with objects but  
> not with subjects.

You're proposing that the "adverbials can come after a topic-marked  
object" rule is really a "topic-marked objects can come at the front  
of a sentence" rule, and trying to extend that to apply to topic- 
marked subjects.  I see two reasons why such front-shifting wouldn't  
apply to subjcts:

1. Subjects come after the verb, not before.
2. We don't even know that such front-shifting does apply to  
objects.  Your proposal is the first time I've heard it suggested.

> I think ghunchu'wI' and DloraH's explanation that {puq'e' yaS qIp}  
> reads like "he or she hit the CHILD's officer" is flimsy.

Flimsy or not, it's how I read it.

> No Klingon would ever read it like that, whether punctuated or not,  
> because of the rule prohibiting type 5 suffixes on the first noun  
> of a noun-noun construction.

I have some experience actually speaking Klingon with people in  
casual conversation, and grammatical perfection in such situations is  
unimportant.  There are certain nongrammatical tendencies that seem  
to come out with some regularity; among them are unintentional  
dropping of the -chugh suffix, putting an aspect suffix on the second  
verb of a sentence-as-object construction or a verb with the -jaj  
suffix...and putting a topic marker on the first noun of a noun-noun.

I recognize the growing prevalence of people tossing a topic noun at  
the front of a sentence, but I'll continue to be a pedantic  
curmudgeon about insisting that subjects belong at the end.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level