tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 26 20:11:46 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon
More and more, the new canon we see appears to break rules. I believe
that some of it is purely error, mostly the forgotten rules of no Type
5s on the first noun of a noun-noun, net instead of 'e', and Type 7 on
the second verb of a sentence-as-object. However, there are some "rules"
that I am beginning to question.
Verbs as nouns
These keep showing up. "It is not known if all verbs can be used as
nouns," says the TKD Addendum, and we know that {tlhutlh} can never be a
noun, but what if most verbs can indeed be used as nouns—at least, the
ones that seem to have obvious meanings as nouns?
Variable semantics
The semantic roles of subjects and objects in Klingon seem to change all
the time. I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you {mev}. Sometimes
we're given explicit instructions on how to use a verb, but most of the
time we rely on the semantics of the English translation. Suppose
Klingon semantics aren't so strict? Suppose you can use any semantic
role you like as subject or object, so long as context makes it clear
what you mean? {jIDIng} "I spin," {gho vIDIng} "I spin the circle," {gho
vIDIngmoH} "I spin the circle." (The difference between the latter two
is an explicit indication ({-moH}) that the subject is the agent, as
opposed to, say, an instrument or a force.
Other?
There may be other examples of "loose grammar" that I haven't thought
of. I'm not sure whether to take these as signs that Okrand can't keep
the whole thing in his head and makes LOTS of mistakes, or whether
Klingon is supposed to be more "yeah, whatever" than we give it credit
for. Remember the rigor their grammarians give to parts of speech...
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol