[114] in tlhIngan-Hol
objects and pong
dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 15:23:54 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: mark@cc.gatech.edu (Mark J. Reed)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 16:21:01 EST
In my introduction, I stated my name with the construction
"Mark Reed" vIponglu'. ("I am called Mark Reed.")
In lesson ten of the MIT course materials, a similar construction is
introduced:
taH jIpong'egh. ("I call myself taH.")
Thinking about it, though, this strikes me as wrong. In both cases, the verb
plus affixes completely describes the subject and object, and the actual name i
s
a grammatically extraneous word. It seems to be trying to be an adverbial, if
anything. In such sentences, wouldn't the name be the direct object, and
the named be the indirect object? Thus:
jIHvaD "Mark Reed" ponglu'.
and
jIHvaD taH jIpong.
And the corresponding questions would be:
SoHvaD nuq ponglu'? -or- chay' Daponglu'?
SoHvaD nuq Dapong? -or- chay' bIpong'egh?
(Of course, one could always stick to "<name> 'oH pongwIj'e'", but that's not
the point. :-)
Comments?
--
Mark J. Reed College of Computing Technical Support
<mark@cc.gatech.edu> Georgia Institute of Technology
