[111446] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Fri Oct 6 05:01:12 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <7d4404fc-a541-027f-44e3-d9ad338bacf5@trimboli.name>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:25:53 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============2243863762615727475==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08260034775d94055ad78ff5"
--089e08260034775d94055ad78ff5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:55 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I've answered this over and over in this thread.
The "you" in that sentence refers to Marc Okrand, who the questions are
intended for, since this thread was started about things that mayqel hoped
to ask him at the next qepHom. I already know your thoughts on *-vaD* and
indirect objects.
This is the same question as 2.
Pretty much. But I am curious to know about stative verbs with *-vaD*
specifically, and I didn't want to assume that he would think of mentioning
those in his answer for question 2. (When I asked "Are there certain verbs
that can never take it?", I was thinking more about exceptions for specific
verbs rather than classes of them, along the lines of how *ghuS* never
takes *-rup* or how *neH* doesn't use *'e'*.)
But if you agree that that's how "it was first described" (which is what
> Lieven is arguing against), then there's no reason to think anything has
> changed. Lieven's *Star Trek Discovery* transcript is not canon.
>
I'm with you, honestly. I don't think it's likely to be grammatical. But
one thing I really enjoy about the Klingon language is when Okrand fleshes
out its cultural background with details you might not care about if you're
just translating everyday things. Slang, dialectical variations, social
class variations, words borrowed from other languages, which errors are
common among different types of novices, which errors are informally
tolerable and which aren't, words for obscure or specific Klingon cultural
concepts that are mostly useless in everyday use (*wob* is my favorite of
these). That sort of thing. I'm curious to know the cultural status of the
3rd-person-indirect-object prefix trick. Is it technically wrong but
casually acceptable, like "ain't" or "there's two people here"? Is it
out-and-out wrong, like "he eateds lunch" or "me talk like caveman"? Is it
a dialect thing, acceptable only in some regions or social classes, and if
so, what do most Klingons think of those regions or social classes? Is it
something that was acceptable in Discovery times but fell out of acceptable
use by the time Maltz moved into Okrand's basement? And so on. There's a
lot of ways for a construction to be wrong.
--089e08260034775d94055ad78ff5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:55 PM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimbol=
i.name</a>></span> wrote:<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><span class=3D"gmail-"></span></div><div bg=
color=3D"#FFFFFF"><span class=3D"gmail-"><br></span><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,=
204,204);padding-left:1ex">I've answered this over and over in this thr=
ead.</blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D"transition: transform 1s ease=
0s;">The "you" in that sentence refers to Marc Okrand, who the q=
uestions are intended for, since this thread was started about things that =
mayqel hoped to ask him at the next qepHom. I already know your thoughts on=
<b>-vaD</b> and indirect objects.<br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,=
204);padding-left:1ex">This is the same question as 2.</blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>Pretty much. But I am curious to know about stative verbs with =
<b>-vaD</b> specifically, and I didn't want to assume that he would thi=
nk of mentioning those in his answer for question 2. (When I asked "<s=
pan class=3D"gmail-im">Are there certain verbs
that can never take it?", I was thinking more about exce=
ptions for specific verbs rather than classes of them, along the lines of h=
ow <b>ghuS</b> never takes <b>-rup</b> or how <b>neH</b> doesn't use <b=
>'e'</b>.)<br></span></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,20=
4,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>But if you agree that that's how "it=
was first described" (which
is what Lieven is arguing against), then there's no reason to
think anything has changed. Lieven's <i>Star Trek Discovery</i>
transcript is not canon.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&=
#39;m with you, honestly. I don't think it's likely to be grammatic=
al. But one thing I really enjoy about the Klingon language is when Okrand =
fleshes out its cultural background with details you might not care about i=
f you're just translating everyday things. Slang, dialectical variation=
s, social class variations, words borrowed from other languages, which erro=
rs are common among different types of novices, which errors are informally=
tolerable and which aren't, words for obscure or specific Klingon cult=
ural concepts that are mostly useless in everyday use (<b>wob</b> is my fav=
orite of these). That sort of thing. I'm curious to know the cultural s=
tatus of the 3rd-person-indirect-object prefix trick. Is it technically wro=
ng but casually acceptable, like "ain't" or "there's=
two people here"? Is it out-and-out wrong, like "he eateds lunch=
" or "me talk like caveman"? Is it a dialect thing, acceptab=
le only in some regions or social classes, and if so, what do most Klingons=
think of those regions or social classes? Is it something that was accepta=
ble in Discovery times but=C2=A0fell out of acceptable use by the time Malt=
z moved into Okrand's basement? And so on. There's a lot of ways fo=
r a construction to be wrong.<br></div></div></div></div></div>
--089e08260034775d94055ad78ff5--
--===============2243863762615727475==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============2243863762615727475==--
