tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 02 12:21:30 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Cogito ergo sum (was RE: Numbers with pronouns)

Christopher Doty (

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:51, Mark J. Reed <> wrote:
> True, but I think it would get tiresome to have -lu' on basically
> every verb in the soliloquy until the end when Hamlet finally refers
> to himself.

Well, it might be tiresome, but if the grammar calls for it...
Putting -ed on the end of a bunch of English verbs might be tiresome,
too, but if the stuff happened in the past...

> Third person works, though I agree it would be better
> with an antecedent established at the beginning (which there isn't
> since {taH pagh taHbe'} is the first line).

Well, the thing is, the non-finite form of the English doesn't *allow*
an antecedent.  I imagine the following conversation:

A: "To be, or not to be, that--"
B: "Who are you talking about?"
A: "Er, what?  I'm not talking about anyone; I'm talking about being
and not being..."

I'd like to pretend that <taH> and <taHbe'> are really nouns, and it's
some sort of clipped Klingon, but that doesn't work with the <-be'>...
Oh well, I guess I will just have to be sad about it.

>> So, yeah.. Maybe Okrand was just flustered or something, I dunno...
> Well, his original fluster-free translation had the same zero prefix
> on {yIn}, so I don't think that was it.

Yeah, I'm just trying to make excuses for him...

> You're not alone, but this is hardly the most questionable bit of
> canon out there.  I'm not terribly fond of "The dish is always very
> good when someone serves cold revenge", myself...

Yeah, I know.  Still... :((

Back to archive top level