[2739] in tlhIngan-Hol
po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Jan 24 14:02:11 1994
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: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 12:29:11 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Mon, 24 Jan 94 09:22:52 EST <9401241423.A
A16685@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 09:22:52 EST
>On Jan 22, 8:33pm, Nick NICHOLAS wrote:
>> Subject: Re: po puv bortaS! (translation)
>>
>> batlh choja', Amy West quv:
>>
>> =Hichmey tuj, Som ChuStaH,...
>> Heat handguns, Noise the hulls,
>Sorry, guy. It doesn't read like that at all. That would have been:
> Hichmey yItujmoH, Som yIchuSmoH
>I don't think it would clip quite that far. I had problems with the
>{-taH} on {chuS} while it was being used adjectivally, but the line clearly
>read, "Hot handguns, noisey hulls...". Without {-moH}, these are intransitive
>verbs incapable of having objects, so having them follow a noun implies that
>they are being used adjectivally (TKD 4.4). I know that pointing this out is
>the grammarian's job, but I feel like a quick response is necessary, lest our
>newer members take this as a correct correction.
Hmm. Yeah, I think you're right. Clipping wouldn't, logically, and
doesn't, in our experience, take out suffixes like "-moH" which make such a
large difference in meaning. Blowing away prefixes in clipped Klingon is
logical and makes sense. Taking out a suffix that makes "hot" into "heat
up" isn't and doesn't.
>> ...The best way to translate "in the morning", which, as you rightly
>> surmised, is not -Daq, an explicitly spatial postposition, is "qaSDI' po".
>I wonder about that. The canon is full of examples like {wa'leS jIDoy'}.
>Notice that Okrand never said {qaSDI' wa'leS jIDoy'}. That construction was
>created here on this list by ~mark, if I remember correctly and it was never
>santified by Okrand and does not exist in canon.
Not ezzactly. The one I advocated was "qaStaHvIS", which *does* exist in
the canon (see qaStaHvIS wa' ram, loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD).
However, I brought down the same examples you just did in a letter which
should be coming through by now as evidence that a bare "po" is likely okay
here also (also see "vagh rep bImejnIS" in CK).
>In {wa'leS jIDoy'}, the first word is a noun, though it is being used
>adverbally to give us a time setting. Would it not be proper to do the same
>with {po}? I've always been confused as to why {DaH} is catagorized as an
>adverbial, while {DaHjaj} is a noun, though the latter is almost always used
>adverbially. My own expectation is that all time related nouns can be used
>adverbially when they begin a sentence. I think this makes AT LEAST AS MUCH
>SENSE as the {qaSDI'} based construction, and it has MORE verification in
>canon.
Not more, but at least as much. There is a fair amount of evidence for
using nouns of time adverbially, and I think it should be acceptable where
it makes sense.
~mark
