tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 10 09:09:59 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The verb {rIn}
- From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The verb {rIn}
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:06:52 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to :x-mailer; bh=j/ACk2oB6wif9BIGPuUHZOcySZqyoMJeod7MZc2LS/A=; b=Qpuvl3/WTfXDqKVItDQxmWJZKA/K0mfgRRiI0NnBffFFrsCOwHwd022C+x75Cga9cn X3Ow6oQYHpCh4Z6CqFm5YuLawz+HFT3Bi62ySoyqnQYnMks9be8OMHCR994I/hUO9BWC myZQvDyKyULA3Tvo1jV6ltErKwpiNyx+6Xv8s=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=r8U8ptWrfjrlcevXXsGnJxdpeRuXPGi7dO3dOFB7UbNK8Lr+IZv62YRGJQ0kDgdvoz joQ6dwJIOmtP8P+f0xHhnkmFUf9m9Dv3VHYEgnmiYBajyNEpPzPkCOE8FDT+3uLvaXwM fTAE9wASiHoH9rjA7r6NG1W9V5EQxSK70RkWE=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
While I see that both work, I find putting both {qar'a'} and {rIntaH} at the very end of the sentence quicker to parse, since there is then no question as to which verb the noun is the subject of. I don't have to take that extra second to figure out wtf the noun is doing in the sentence.
Add that with {qar'a'}, the tag makes the statement it follows a question. It is one stage more complex to figure out that the noun after the tag is part of the statement that is being converted into a question and not part of the question enfolding the statement. This is especially true since explicit subjects are typically third person, so in most cases the null prefix is used on both verbs, so there is no prefix clue as to which verb gets the subject.
The grammatically interesting feature here is that in both of these cases, the sentence referred back to by {rIn} and {qar} are the SUBJECT of the tag verb, and not the object, which is why we don't use {'e'} or {net} with them. This is never referred to as such, but this is a Sentence As Subject construction, which is one of those exceptional things in Klingon. So far as I know, these are the only two verbs you can do this with (though many have tried with other verbs, sticking {'e'} or {net} in there, just trying to force the grammar to be something normal when it isn't. This makes {neH} especially exceptional, since it has the syntax appearance of these two Sentence As Subject tag verbs, but doesn't have {'e'} or {net} like the many other Sentence As Object verbs, though it does have the full set of prefix options of the SAO verbs, unlike the SAS tag verbs, which always have to have a null prefix because the subject is always third person singular, being the sentence that precedes the tag verb.
I hope you enjoy thinking about this. It's a new thought for me, though some of you may have already been here long ago and already recognized this.
pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
On Feb 10, 2011, at 11:35 AM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> According to TKD, rIntaH follows the verb it modifies, so supposedly "The man buys the targ." would be translated as targh je' rIntaH loD. However, the only canonical examples are phrases of the form (verb prefix)-(verb) rIntaH, so for all we know it could also be targh je' loD rIntaH (here rIntaH follows the verb; just not directly).
>
> We have a similar usage example in the "tag question" {qar'a'}. It too
> follows the verb, but we are explicitly told that it can come at the
> very end of the sentence. Both {qama' yu' qar'a' yaS} and {qama' yu'
> yaS qar'a'} are correct. I have no problem with the same options for
> {rIntaH} as a "finality" marker: {qama' yu' rIntaH yaS} and {qama' yu'
> yaS rIntaH} both work for me.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>