[1090] in tlhIngan-Hol
instrumental case which isn't there
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Jun 28 12:10:12 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: (Mark E. Shoulson) <shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 93 09:25:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: Randall Holmes's message of Fri, 25 Jun 93 14:44:13 -0600 <9306252
044.AA25566@ima.ima.isc.com>
>From: Randall Holmes <holmes@diamond.idbsu.edu>
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 93 14:44:13 -0600
>Content-Length: 602
>A question (or proposal):
> Can the special sentence pronoun 'e' take noun suffixes?
> If it can, can the vexing problem of the instrumental be
>solved as follows:
> verengan vIHoHpu' 'e'vaD tajvam ghaHpu'
> I killed the Ferengi with this knife,
> literally "I killed the Ferengi; for that, this knife was".
> This seems reasonably economical; the really superfluous
>seeming element is the pronoun used for "to be" which is needed to
>complete the second sentence; I felt the need to make it agree in
>aspect with the verb in the main sentence, but this is optional.
I've also wondered about sufixing the "'e'" pronoun, though not for that
reason. "For that, the knife was" seems a pretty lousy construction for
what you're trying to say (it should be "'oHpu'", first of all, and I';d
translate that as "it was this knife". What was?) Remember, even
considering pronouns as "to be", they're "to be" only in the sense of
*copulas*, that is, they indicate equality between two nouns, not simple
existence.
For "I killed the Ferengi with this knife", I might use "verengan vIHoHmeH,
tajvam vIlo'pu'" (In order to kill the Ferengi, I used this knife).
> --"Randall Holmes" mughlaw'wI'
~mark
