[1463] in tlhIngan-Hol
completive clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Aug 28 03:33:16 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: Sat, 28 Aug 1993 02:09:55 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
j.guy:
> 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'" is a sentence made of
two, consecutive, independent clauses. Test case: how would you
> say "Veni, vidi, vici." in Klingon? jIghoS, vIlegh, vIchargh, no?
Well, it's not a matter of punctuation; Klingon has no such thing
(as far as we know).
Also, I don't believe that {pu' vIlaQ} can legally coexist with Qaw'
on the justification that Qaw' has Duj as an object and therefore
cancels out the need for 'e'. Just stop and think what {pu' vIl
'e' vIQaw'} would mean. I'm just not satified with putting two
dueling verbs together in one sentence without supplying some
indication of relationship between them. {pu' vIlaQmeH Duj vIQaw'pu'}
or maybe {Duj Qaw'pu' pu' vIlaQbogh} since we've been discussing
relative clauses almost exclusively for the past few days.
"Veni, vidi, vici" are three complete ideas having no interrelationship
with each other grammatically. They just describe a chronological
transition of events. "Of course," the insightful reader might argue,
"Don't the phrases {pu' vIlaQ} and {Duj vIQaw'pu'} also describe a
chronolgical transition. Maybe so, but I just don't feel comfortable
with something like this unless I have an authority like TKD to fall
back on. The deal with "Veni, vidi, vici," is just a missing conjunction.
It's the same with J.Guy's phrase. If plural suffixes aren't necessary
in cases where there'd be no confusion, maybe conjunctions can follow
the same pattern. But still, this argument WAS sparked by the disagreement
on instrumentals; it'd just be nice to see a grammatical link there or
something. That's all.
Guido#1 signing off..... *
