[1452] in tlhIngan-Hol
Instrumental
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Aug 25 21:04:15 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: j.guy@trl.oz.au (Jacques Guy)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 10:22:08 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <9308251400.AA29980@startide.ctr.columbia.edu> from "shoulson@ctr.
columbia.edu" at Aug 25, 93 10:00:05 am
I too see no need for an instrumental-marking suffix. Chinese,
for instance, does very nicely with "yong4", literally: to use.
You would say in Chinese: "I use phaser destroyed ship", with
the perfective expressed only on "destroy". In this particular
sentence, though, in Klingon, I would favour baH (or should it be
laQ for phasers? My Klingon is minimal) over lo': pu' vIlaQ
Duj vIQaw'pu'. That is also how you would say it in the
Pidgin English of Vanuatu, the syntax of which is modelled
on that of the native languages (mi faerem fesa, mi brebrekem
sip), even though that Pidgin English does have an instrumental
preposition (actually, not one, but two).
(What a pain those capitals are to type in. I know, I know,
tradition, tradition! But they still are an offense to my
natural-born laziness).
