tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 11:15:02 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: The topic marker -'e'

ghunchu'wI' 'utlh (

2009/11/24 David Trimboli <>:
> maja'chuqtaHvIS reH tlhIngan Hol 'op. rut agent, experiencer,
> patient, latlh je lo' tlhIngan Hol SoHvaD 'e' vI'agh rIntaH. chaq
> QInvetlh DaqImHa'pu'. Dajangbe'bejpu'.

vIjangta'. chovnatlh <Qoy> Damuch 'ej per "expreiencer" Danob. ponbe'
chovnatlhvam 'e' vI'angmeH, TKW mu'tlhegh <'IwlIj ghogh yIQoy> vIqel.

mu'tlheghmey Da'agh. permey Dachel. 'ach pagh luchoH permeyvam. pagh
luQIj. mu'vaD lo' DawIvlaw' 'ej 'oHvaD pong Dajatlh.

I see the application of linguistic labels and hear that Klingon has
different semantic roles for different kinds of subjects. When I ask
why a particular verb gets its subject labeled in a particular way and
point out a differing interpretation, I get what looks like circular
reasoning telling me that the given interpretation is the right one
because that's what the label means. Nobody has given me a compelling
explanation of how these labels make any difference whatsoever in our
usage, in our understanding, or in our construction of Klingon

That's what's keeping me engaged in the topic -- the labels seem to
have no bearing on Klingon grammar as we know it from Okrand's
descriptions. I fear they can only cause confusion among people who
know the specialized linguistic meaning they have and misapply that
meaning to something which it does not describe. Simple lists of
Klingon sentences with labels on the nouns are not sufficient
explanation of how -- or why -- the labels matter.

> tlhIngan Hol SIghbejmo' pab wIqeltaHbogh, ngachmeH pup ghomvam.

chay' SIgh? yIperQo' neH. HIchuH!

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level