[235] in tlhIngan-Hol
re: rovers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Mar 21 19:55:23 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: krankor@IMA.ISC.COM (Captain Krankor)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 18:44:23 -0500
Dr Schoen raised some issues about rovers. Some interesting ones indeed.
My take is that most of what he is trying to do is legal, if somewhat
on-the-fringe. The one that I would take exception to is:
yIHoHqu'Ha'Qo'
There is not much ambiguity about the fact that -Ha' always goes right
after the verb. The rule given is very explicit, and I have seen not
a single counter-example.
I suppose one *could* have more than one -qu' on a verb, but I think it
is highly uncommon; I would expect a Klingon response to that to be
something on the order of "Hey, make up your mind! Which one are you
emphasizing?". I also would expect that -qu' is not used that much for
the kind of emphasis indicated in English by uppercase, where said emphasis
could be acheived more easily and directly, at least in spoken Klingon,
by simply stressing the syllable. Thus,
boHoHvIpqu''a'? "Are you AFRAID to kill me?"
would be less likely than
boHoH*vIp*'a'? "Are you AFRAID to kill me?"
In contrast, -qu' *would* be needed in cases where -qu' may actually
augment the meaning of the verb. Thus:
pujqu' jagh yoDmey
and
*puj* jagh yoDmey
may have slightly different meanings. The first would seem to mean
"The enemy's shields are very weak." Whereas the second would be more
a matter of emphasis, not quantity: "The enemy's shields are WEAK."
Thus, the first would be more likely as a simple fact about the current
state of things, whereas the second would be more likely as part of,
say, an argument in favor of attack.
The point of all of this is to conclude that issues of multiple -qu's and
their placement may all be tempest in a teapot; I don't think in actual
usage such things happen too much, though they may be technically legal.
Here, though, is a (somewhat contrived) example of when double -qu' might
be appropriate. The mad scientist asks the Klingon if he wants to try out
the scientist's new growth-ray, which will transform him into a giant.
The eager Klingon responds:
jItInqu'qang'qu'! "I am very willing to be huge!"
I don't think doing the same sentence with spoken emphasis instead of -qu'
would have quite the same shades of meaning.
But again, most of this is musings and speculation. We're always a little
in trouble when we try to speculate about the murky areas of Klingon, and
it is usually best to avoid them where possible. Still, it is not always
possible or desirable to avoid them, so we continue to explore them.
--From the Grammarian's Desk,
Krankor
