tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 26 14:09:54 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:08:47 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YXP5bBbbn7jlTfSapx71vbp12b0ZizwWAL5jjNUr7Vo=; b=rfb29QFCpK0QGMrriDnU3ikOaNumMZyWfNTmD/tnnQ70q/Gzy3/LyGgw3tycTvja7u +lTaD9ln1WGOuC6I70NXn4Za7qHK2T9aLE+1aYdGQyGyxSu4B7ir6O4bMaKy6fnIRLd+ pJEBdMiUtIXDtsqltHoNbedldPm6MfFwEEauM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=nQ3HOGXT7eIsu0dWrPCiyhvoJlZfJqSqDswO2LSUvKKnlHLMKgLgHvi5SaUqAZ+0UK qqjGJBAmUWKcjaoIQUY6DJ2xto+SX3dIBDGALWkcdrBFwbMaZBd7d9Au23Qw7iRjFlDa jJw7s6ch7Z+NajFDEZzgx64EUs4qBekKq/fYc=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
I think part of the problem in following this conversation is that in X-vaD
Y, the X-vaD is never (supposed to be) a noun-noun construction, yet it's
being called this over and over.
lay'tel SIvten
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Christopher Doty <[email protected]>wrote:
> I think my phone is screwing up the who said what when bit. Sorry if my
> answers below are weird...
> > If this is true (which I think it is), then -vaD gets used for > anything
> where an action or object is directed toward something, and
>
> > is thus logically used for indirect objects, but this doesn't limit
>
> > how it is used... For example:
>
> >
>
> > tlhIHvaD tIrqi' jaj Quch!!
>
>
>
> 'oy' jay'! When transliterating, please at least mark the word somehow.
>
> It took me a moment to realize this meant "turkey," and any beginners
>
> reading your post may have spent several minutes scratching their heads,
>
> wondering what *{qi'} meant. :)
>
>
>
> ME: Well, how does one mark this? Or is simply using the english word okay
> in these cases?
>
> --
> But yes, I agree that {-vaD} can be used in this sense, but not with
>
> this syntax, unless it's clipped in the way DloraH suggested. You
>
> haven't specified what {tlhIH} is the beneficiary of. It can't be
>
> {turkey jaj Quch}, because that's a noun phrase, and modifying the
>
> following noun phrase would be a noun-noun construction with a Type 5
>
> suffix on the genitive. (The same objection I've had all along.)
>
>
>
> ME: But I have specified it. It is the recipient of a a happy turkey day.
>
> I still take issue with saying that a noun with -vaD modifies following
> nouns. Based on what we know, I don't think this interpretation is ever
> correct.
>
> Well-wishing and (espeically) toasts in Klingon actually follow special
>
> grammatical rules, first mentioned in Power Klingon and later explained
>
> in detail in Klingon for the Galactic Traveler. No matter what the
>
> sentence, the verb will have {-jaj} and it will always come last, even
>
> if this violates OVS order. So, as a toast:
>
>
>
> tlhIHvaD turkey jaj Quchjaj!
>
> May you have a happy turkey day!
>
> Happy turkey day!
>
>
>
> ME: Okay, so I got the final jaj wrong, but this is otherwise just what I
> said...
>
> --
>
> In standard Klingon, if it weren't in the context of a toast or the
>
> like, the sentence would be
>
>
>
> tlhIHvaD Quchjaj turkey jaj!
>
>
> ME: I'm confused by this, but that might just be because of relatives and
> not anything about the sentence. I think my confusion is because something
> like this is always going to be a toast/well-wishing type thing, so this
> seems odd...
>
>
>