[1459] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Instrumentals, and just a wee bit more on relative clauses..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Aug 27 06:08:19 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: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 15:16:23 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <01H27QXGN54Y8ZDYJX@delphi.com> from "DSTRADER@delphi.com" at Aug
26, 93 09:29:43 pm
>
>
> > "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,
Not at all, many a time have I destroyed Klingon spaceships with
my trusty phasers, when playing StarTrek on a Univac 1108,
then a DEC-KL10 (ah, those were the days! No graphics of
course; not even lowercase letters: Halcyon days of the
Teleray!)
>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."
Absolutely not. Section 6.2.5 deals with completive clauses, that is,
clauses that function as the direct objects of the verbs of main
clauses. Thus in "Dalegh vIneH" "Dalegh" functions as the object
of "vIneH", literally: I want [that] you see him. Likewise,
"jIQong vIneH" I want [that] I sleep, and so for every example in that
section. Is not that section at any rate, entitled "Sentences as
objects"?
In "pu' vIlaQ Duj vIQaw'pu'" "pu' vIlaQ" cannot be interpreted as
an object clause (completive clause) because:
1. Qaw' already has an object: Duj
2. if we delete Duj, so that Qaw' may have "pu' vIlaQ" for object,
the rules in section 6.2.5 would require the use of 'e' or
net, since Qaw' is not neH, nor does it express "say, tell,
ask, etc."
So I hold that "pu' vIlaQ Duj vIQaw'pu'" is a sentence made of
two, consecutive, independent clauses. Test case: how would you
say "Veni, vidi, vici" in Klingon? jIghoS, vIlegh, vIchargh, no?
Is it a matter of punctuation then?
> 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 ---*
>
>
