[1458] in tlhIngan-Hol
Instrumentals, and just a wee bit more on relative clauses..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Aug 27 00:06:40 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 21:29:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
In my previous message, I suggested an alternative for the use of an
instrumental suffix. {vIbachpu'meH pu' vIlo'} instead of *{pu'lo'
vIbachpu'}. JacquesGuy responded soonafter with an alternate alternative.
It was similar to the Chinese which uses the verb for "use" as an
instrumental.
> "I use phaser destroyed ship."
He claimed to prefer laQ over lo' in that case for the phaser.
> pu' vIlaQ Duj vIQaw'pu'
Literally, "I use the phaser, I destroyed the ship." An incredible
feat, nonetheless, I can't live with it grammatically. TKD clearly
states in the latter part of section 6.2.5 that only the verbs
neH, rIntaH, and any verb describing the action of speaking (jatlh,
ja', tlhob, etc.) may accompany another verb in a dual verb construction
(in which neither verb takes any type 9 suffixes, or in which there is
no presence of a topic pronoun like 'e' or net.) What JacquesGuy has
there is what I might call a "duel verb construction." The verbs run
into a conflict since they can't coexist within the sentence in those
grammatical forms. Apparently the duel verbs were modelled after the
syntax of the Pidgin English Vinuatu.
> "Mi faerem fesa, mi brebrekem sip."
Now, it's often been stated that Klingon is not English, and we shouldn't
impose English rules on Klingon for quick solutions to linguistic
complexities and ambiguities. Well, as much as Klingon is not English,
it is also not Vinuatu, nor Chinese, nor Lisu, nor Latin. Klingon is
itself. Try to bear that in mind when paralleling Klingon linguistic
theories with those of Terran languages.
Also, there still seems to be some question as to what is being seen
in the phrase {yaS qIppu'bogh puq vIlegh}. Personally, I would rather
see the use of -'e' utilized more than sticking the main verb between
the components of the relative clause.
Also, if it is so necessary to be able to say "On the ship on which the
captain ate, mutiny occurs." Forget this nonsense of putting two -Daq's
on the word. Why not just say, {DujDaq SoptaHvIS HoD qaS qIQ}. Still,
this implies the simultaniety of the eating and the mutiny, but keep
an eye out for such alternatives to situations that just don't quite
work when one certain grammatical construction is used.
Guido#1 ---*
