[1907] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Conjunctions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Nov 2 01:45:52 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, 02 Nov 1993 01:41:13 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
> In Conversational Klingon (that's right,
> the earlier tape), in the bar scene, we have "They serve Black Ale or
> Regulan Bloodwine" as {HIq qIj reghuluS 'Iw HIq ghap jab}. Note that it's
> {jab} and not {lujab}, thus implying that a {ghap} conjoined noun-phrase is
> considered *plural*. If you're willing to apply logic to a language (a
> dangerous proposition, I'll grant), you could say that if a ghap phrase is
> plural, where the "real" referent must be singular, then a fortiori you
> have that a joq or je phrase would be plural too. That's what we have for
> from the canon, make of it what you will.
>
> >Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
>
>
> ~mark, ~ of all marks. Or maybe mark of all ~s.
Well, ~, your idea certainly has a whole bunch less merit than I wish
it had. Unfortunately, in CK, Okrand himself makes numerous mistakes.
I could have sworn I heard at least two glottal stops slipped in where
they shouldn't have been and sometimes left out. But that's not the
end of it. There is a sentence for "Klingon warriors are butting heads,"
that is translated in Okrandian version {qIp'egh nachDu'chaj tlhIngan
SuvwI'pu'}. Now make of THAT sentence what you will. The nearest I can
come to a reasonable correction is {qIpchuq tlhIngan SuvwI'pu' nachDu'}.
But probably the most aggrivating of all is the fact that Okrand simply
omitted the {lu-} prefix in two places where I'm sure they must be:
"They don't serve Romulan Ale to Terrans - too potent."
{tera'nganvaD romuluS HIq jabQo' - HoSghajqu'}
If the subject is indeed {chaH} (understood), then it should be:
{tera'nganvaD romuluS HIq lujabQo' - HoSghajqu'}
"Klingons never destroy good food."
{not Soj QaQ Qaw' tlhInganpu'}
Should be:
{not Soj QaQ luQaw' tlhInganpu']
This would be the case _unless_ {Soj} really means "foodstuffs" and
its plural suffix is understood. But for some reason, my mind doesn't
like that line of thinking.
So it seems Okrand is really not in fact devoid of error, as some would
rather believe his honorable status as deitous creator of tlhIngan Hol
would justify every apparent inconsistency he makes. I'm not insinuating
that ~ is one of the people who entertains this attitude; in fact, I
really would like to agree with his logic on the plurality of all
N-N-Conj. phrases, but the evidence before us is highly questionable,
afaiac. That's all. Until more evidence emerges, I'll have to remain
on the borderline opinion.
I haven't got a chance to purchase PK yet. Can anyone out there in
netland find another example of conjunctions used with a pronominal
prefix on the new tape or some other Okrandian medium??
! @ # $ % ^ & * (Guido1-LeaderOfAllGuidos) * & ^ % $ # @ !
