[1949] in tlhIngan-Hol
The word {quq} (?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Nov 5 11:51:50 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 11:45:34 -0500
>From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
>To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
>Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1993 06:37:12 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: The word {quq} (?)
>I've been working on this one for a while. I came across the need for
>the concept of simultaneity and found the verb {quq}, "happen
>simultaneously." I've been playing around with it for a long time and
>haven't been able to figure out how to fit it into a sentence
>and remain consistent with all the grammar currently known. Can someone
>drop me a hint?
Well, I could be facetious and give you this dialogue:
DubaHpa' DabaH'a'? ghobe', quq.
(Did you shoot him before he shot you? No, it happened at once)
but that's a cop-out answer. That's actually a very good question. I
suppose it would be legal to say {quq vIbaHghach mubaHghach je}, by our
current understanding of "-ghach", but there has to be a better way.
This is related to the problem we had before of how to have sentences as
subjects. We know about sentences as objects; that's what "'e'" and "net"
are for. But how about "It was difficult [for me] to kill the captain"?
The word for "to be difficult" is "Qatlh", but somehow "HoD vIHoH" has to
be its *subject*. Based on some Okrandian sentences I'd think one
legitimate way to do it, relying on pragmatics, would be {HoD vIHoHDI'
Qatlh} (it was difficult when I killed the captain). (c.f. De' lI'
Sovlu'DI' chaq Do'Ha'). We could also do that -ghach thang and get {Qatlh
HoD vIHoHghach} (my killing of the captain was difficult). Still, this is
something for which perhaps Okrand might want to come up with a solution.
~mark
