[1955] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The word {quq} (?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Nov 6 09:02:00 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: Sat, 06 Nov 1993 07:15:26 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
Well, I'll have to go find an English teacher informant, but I think
the "it" in "It was difficult for me to kill the captain," is rather
Anglicizational. It doesn't sound natural to English speakers to say
"For me difficult was to kill the captain." We might say "To kill the
captain was difficult for me," but even that form sounds rigid and in
tune with the formal written English. We have a tendency to use the
word "it" a lot, as in "It's cold out here," "It's raining/snowing."
What does the "it" really stand for. That's an interesting question
for English grammar. I doubt Klingons use this method to get by, since
it's much easier and more to-the-point to say {bIr Hur} or maybe (and
this one's imesho dangling on the edge of argumentation) {bIr naDev}.
Disregard the latter if it looks uncomfortably familiar. We've already
argued that point. Some of you might like it better as {bIr DaqwIj},
right? Who knows?
Anyways, I'm losing track of my topic.
This sentences as subjects thing was the topic of my letter to HolQeD (2:3).
Has anyone read that? I posted something about it yesterday, but it never
showed up on the list. Our mailing system conked out on me again. Don't
be surprised if that message turns up later today.
ANYWAYS, my letter stated the new discovery I had made from ST5: Cpt.
Klaa says something in reference to the ancient Terran probe he's
targeting which is subtitled "Difficult to hit." It sounded to me
more than anything like {qIp net Qatlh}. Like I said in my letter,
this does not look like a blunder of any sort. If it were, it would
most likely attributable to Okrand, and if that's the case, we have
a new function of {net} on our hands-- The 'sentences as subjects'
function. At least it works for verbs describing states of being (those
that can function adjectivially). The verb-subject syntax is not quite
right, but why shouldn't we accept this? One of these days someone
will ask Okrand abbout it, and he'll have no choice but to admit it.
I don't know about others opinions to these unwritten Okrandian rules,
like the {Dochvam nuq} construction from CK.
Well, for "It was difficult for me to kill the captain," how 'bout this:
{HoD vIHoH net Qatlh
}
But until we know whether the sentences-as-objects function works for
all verbs, I still not sure about using it with {quq}.
and I'm really uneasy about using it with {'e'}. {quq} and {qaS} just
don't seem like the kind of verbs that would take objects, but I could
be wronger* than I think:
It came to pass that the river dried up.
{QaDqu'pu' bIQtIq 'e' qaS} (?)
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos, and Follower of All Klingons
