[2520] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: naDev jIchu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Jan 12 12:09:47 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 12:05:07 EST
On Jan 12, 9:10am, Al Goodnis wrote:
> Subject: Re: naDev jIchu'
> > From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu> {charghwI'}
[I wish I had the original example in this message. As I remember it, you had
one complete sentence with a period. {tlhIngan Hol vIHaD.}? You followed that
with a separate sentence beginning with an adverbial chuv followed by {'e'}
followed by a second verb. {loQ vISov.}?]
> > If the {'e'} is supposed to refer to the previous sentence ...having
> > an adverb between the earlier sentence and {'e'} screws up the effect.
> > Whether the wise ones believe the construction is legal or not, my
> > opinion is that it is not easily understood...
> Thank you for the correction, but I am a little confused. If I had
> been talking to you and our sentences alternated, as in a normal
> conversation, and I wanted to refer to your last sentences content and
> belittle it for some reason, I could not use the adverb and {'e'}?? How
> would you do it then?
>
> -qor
A couple points here. First, while it is valid for ME to say a sentence
and then YOU to refer to it in a separate sentence beginning with {'e'}, that
does not mean that it is fine for YOU to offer one complete sentence, marked
with a period (not sanctioned in TKD, but often used on this list), and then
have YOU follow that with another sentence beginning with {'e'}. These are
two different kinds of events. The first was suggested in HolQeD by Krankor
and not universally accepted. Many of us, including me, believe that it IS an
acceptable construction, but anybody should confess that it is a stretch of
the grammar as we know it. It is a logical stretch that naturally fits the
way people talk to each other, but it is a stretch all the same.
{'e'} is MEANT to be used in the middle of ONE sentence to connect two
verbs such that that which could stand as a complete sentence revolving
around the first verb becomes the object of the second verb.
To conclude that you can legitimately stretch that to cover two
sentences said or written by the same person in succession is probably
stretching things a tad too far. That was the root of my objection.
That objection was exaserbated by your use of an adverbial in front of
the {'e'}. Even if this WERE a conversation between two people (and it
wasn't), then placing the adverbial in front of the {'e'} weakens the link
between the sentence I just finished and the one you just started. While it
may be grammatically acceptable IF IT OCCURRED BETWEEN TWO CONVERSING PEOPLE,
it would be stylistically unclear, In My Ever So Humble Opinion.
I also think your original sentences were not well suited to joining
with {'e'}. I think you said:
tlhIngan Hol vIHaD. loQ 'e' vISov.
If the construction were completely right, it would mean "I slightly
know that I study the language of Klingon."
My preference would be, if possible, to get the sense you sought with an
adverbial with a verbal suffix instead.
If I can reconstruct something near what you originally said as a
conversation, looking for your intent to belittle:
jIH: tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh
SoH: 'e' vIHarlaHlaw'
Would THAT carry the intent to belittle that you sought? Please do not
take any of this as a putdown. I often speak with more edge than I intend,
especially on topics surrounding Klingonness. It just comes out that way. I
do welcome you here and do not wish to in any way discourage you from writing
more. The more Klingon writing I see, the more natural it becomes to read it.
The more sources, the more content. Even when you make mistakes, you help me
because you make me think about constructions I may never have come up with
on my own. It also helps me decide what I stylistically like and dislike.
-- charghwI'
