tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 28 00:51:16 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Ditransitive reflexives

eric mead (emead@hotmail.com) [KLI Member]



 

First of all, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Eric, and I'm a severe newbie to Klingon. As such, I am very hesitant to join this thread, but I'm curious if someone could answer a couple questions.

 

I understand that Klingon cannon and Okrand's work are the final word (and the only word?) on Klingon grammar. So, I understand that something like:

 

chaHvaD yuch nobchuq
 

is seen as not acceptable as per TKD 4.2.1, but the way I read it, it says that -chuq is used with, "...the prefix set indicating 'no-object'..." (TKD, pg. 36)... but it doesn't really address (that is, specifically) whether that means there is necessarily no object -- only that those are the prefixes used. I guess it may be counter-intuitive to imagine that it could allow an object, but what if it were a special usage of an object with a prefix (normally) indicating no object? Wouldn't be the first time a language had an exception to a seemingly regular rule.

 

And that actually brings me to my larger question. What happens in the culture of tlhIngan Hol if there is found an area of the grammar that seems problematic and/or just missing and the fluent speakers have an intuition (generally agreed upon) about it?? Does that become another resource? Or are speakers not 'allowed' to add their own intuitions to the grammar?

 

Again, I am very new to all this, and I don't mean to be rude or challenging. I just am trying to understand Klingon's capacity and mechanisms for evolution as a living language, and I look forward to getting more knowledgable as time goes on.

 

-ERIC

 

 

 

 

> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:34:11 -0700
> From: terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net
> Subject: Re: Ditransitive reflexives
> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> 
> --- On Tue, 10/27/09, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> > 
> > {tam} means "exchange, substitute," so {yuch lutampu'}
> > probably means 
> > "they substituted chocolate (for something else)."
> > 
> > Without reflexive pronouns, I don't see any way to express
> > this short of 
> > completely recasting it. Knowing the context would be
> > necessary for 
> > this. For example, {muSHa'chuqmo' be' loD je, bangDajvaD
> > yuch nobpu' 
> > Hoch qoch.}
> > 
> 
> I would probably use parallel verb phrases: {be'vaD yuch nob loD 'ej loDvaD yuch nob be'}. We know that Klingon doesn't mind this sort of repetition.
> 
> -- ter'eS 
> 
> 
> 

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: I wanted more reliable, now it's more reliable. Wow!
http://microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/default-ga.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_myidea:102009




Back to archive top level