[1875] in tlhIngan-Hol
pabHey chu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Oct 26 23:39:27 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 23:34:17 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com"
I don't have CK with me here, but I'm pretty sure there was something
quite interesting I heard that no one has afaik talked about anywhere
yet. The {DIvI' Hol} translation was,
"Terrans enjoy eating burnt animals."
--- and then all I remember hearing was {Ha'DIbaHmey meQ..},
obviously meaning, "burnt animals."
What this looks like to me is a new grammatical construction. Okrand
has come up with several that he never explains specifically. Maybe
this is an expansion on the adjective grammar we've been using since
who-can-say-when. Or maybe participles is a more appropriate description.
The way I see it, it goes something like this:
Any Klingon verb that cannot semantically take an object can follow a
noun, and that noun would act as the subject of that verb as if it were
followed by the relative suffix {-bogh}.
An example should make this clear:
{moHbogh Ha'DIbaH} = {Ha'DIbaH moH}
{meQbogh Ha'DIbaH} = {Ha'DIbaH meQ}
Or course some may argue that {meQ} should be able to take an object, as
in, "to burn (something)." I feel like {meQ} rather leans toward the
intransitive meaning of "burn." If you want to say, "She burns it," that
would imesho come closer to {meQmoH}. The understood causitive in English
probably wouldn't follow thru for the Klingon, which already has a causitive
suffix.
Thus recall the old Klingon proverb {qaStaHvIS wa' ram loSSaD Hugh SIjlaH
qetbogh loD}. The {qetbogh loD} according to this new rule, may be alterantivel
y\[Sorry, my typing became like a runaway train for a second there].
Let me repeat that: The {qetbogh loD}, according to this new rule, may
be an alternative to {loD qet}. The logic behind it is probably that
{qet}, {meQ}, and {moH} can't really take an object and still make sense,
thus if a noun appeared before one of them, its function could be
distinguishable from the objective function, if that makes any sense at
all to you.
Hoch vIjatlh rIntaH
____
/ \ = | | | /|
/ \ | -|--|- |
| ___ | | | /--\| /---\ | | |
| / | | | | | | | -|--|- |
\____/ \___/ \ | \__/ \ \___/ | | __|_
Leader of All Guidos
