[45] in tlhIngan-Hol
From the Grammarian's Desk
dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 15:19:13 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
From: krankor@IMA.ISC.COM (Captain Krankor)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 01:01:33 -0500
Small grammatical tidbit: Eddie Maise writes:
ghIQmeyra' tItIvqu' DuSaQDaq vumDaq joq tlhIHbe'bogh Hoch!
There are actually two interesting tidbits in this sentence. One is
a grammatic extension that many people, myself included, have been using
but that has never received much explicit attention (to my memory). That
is the use of the word Hoch as the subject of a to-be pronoun-verb. Strictly,
there is no indication that any other subject may be applied when a pronoun
is used as the verb of to-be, however sentences such as "naDev maH Hoch"
seem to make sense (we are all here). However, I think that, technically,
it should probably be "naDev maH Hoch'e'", following the same rule as when
a third-person pronoun is used with a subject. I have been guilty of this
myself in the past, but I intend to start making amends.
On a less debatable point, there is a slight problem with the word "ghIQmeyra'"
here. Obviously, it is intended to mean "your (plural) vacations". ghIQ is
actually a verb (to take a vacation), but we are generally permitted to
infer a noun from a simple (one syllable) verb (but not vice-versa), so
that is really not a problem. What *is* a problem is the noun suffix ra'.
There are two suffixes for many of the possessive pronouns, one for beings
capable of using language, one for everything else. ra' is the capable-of-
language form. However, a vacation is *not* capable of language {{;-). I
suspect that the confusion lies in determining *which* thing is sentient,
the possessor or the possessee. It is, however, the possessee, and I quote:
"When the noun *being possessed* refers to a being capable of using language,
a special set of suffixes is used..." (first edition, 3.3.4, p 25; emphasis
added). Therefore, it should be "ghIQmeyraj". I believe he makes the same
mistake elsewhere, so I thought I'd just clarify.
Captain Krankor, Grammarian
