tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 30 10:51:57 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Checking understanding of -be'
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Checking understanding of -be'
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:49:46 -0800
- 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 :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ukwAHZNHGQDUesRuMW/wGUAhJitopx+XJiDz1VZLH18=; b=MW1K8VWZcat6LQBUbxAEkrrxB1vKXq/yBYEGNUhEZzWgbqR+t3dXkCPVBz0GEDjr57 R2vo+jFkz2B8hb1l9rmm8tBrarQc9n+YFzaRzQGZvfOeIjj1POxtzw6GWeBAL5E1nbRX AKHXfGThajF1VwCXMlHj2cHKgKsM3SF35VzCQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=suK72sfvu6J2Zaypr9aOBtCbsNTmtm7vp0EpS2DBa/1Iv+JCuqhuYdsrQ4rH61o2s7 aYRem6IkeItEOCdkrWC/I/EOKpu04AJGYO9XYis5lBxj6Jteet3LIFqPZ0pCqQjYP5TV NqfJzERYNszOmfpGxkzCqgBp/LQegNgUsmEWY=
- In-reply-to: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A6011382A88275@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A6011382A88275@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 07:58, Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
> TKW 48: The Klingon construction {tIvnISbe'} means "does not need to enjoy"; {tIvbe'nIS" would mean "needs to not enjoy", an utterly different concept.
This, coupled with what is said in TKD, make it pretty clear to me
that there is a difference between <-lu'be'> and <-be'lu'>, even if we
don't see examples in canon. There are also certainly cases where the
difference might be very subtle or unimportant; this is why I
constructed my examples as I did, with lots of context, to show that
there could be a difference in some places.
Consider:
> pujwI' HIvlu'chugh quvbe'lu'
> There is no honor in attacking the weak. TKW
It isn't clear in this case that the difference between <quvbe'lu'>
and <quvlu'be'> would be meaningful: "One doesn't" or "no one does."
It probably takes a context to highlight the difference (or to make it
relevant).
>
> {-lu'be'}:
>
> SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'
> There are no old warriors. TKW
>
> Hmm... I thought there was another example. This may be a colloquial variant of the more formally correct {tu'be'lu'}, which also occurs:
>
> QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj
> May your coordinates be free of tribbles! PK
>
> Perhaps some Klingons just add {-be'} to {tu'lu'} "there is/are" as if it were a fixed formula. We know that Klingons also omit the {-lu'} prefix in the plural:
>
> naDev tlhInganpu' tu'lu'
> There are Klingons around here. TKW
>
> At qep'a' loSDIch "Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as 'the Klingon version of "whom"' got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction [from Okrand]. {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} is grammatical, but the {lu-} is more often left off." (ghunchu'wI')
>
> "... in English, most people use the word 'who' when formally they should be using 'whom', much like most Klingons use the word {tu'lu'} when they should be using {lutu'lu'}. In other words, the more formally correct sentence is {tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} though most Klingons most of the time would say {tlhInganpu' tu'lu'}." (charghwI')
>
> If this is so, then {-lu'be'} may not be productive on other verbs after all.
Yeah, I'm hesitant to make anything from <tu'lu'>, since verbs like
this tend to have special syntax, and this is clearly the case in
Klingon with the lack of <-lu'>. Spanish, for example, does exactly
this: "There is kids," because the verb "there is" has become so
lexicalized. In past tenses, the plural is technically correct, but
pretty much no one uses it.