[2772] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jan 25 13:04:32 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: Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:50:44 EST
On Jan 25, 12:51am, Nick NICHOLAS wrote:
> Subject: Re: po puv bortaS! (translation)
...
> My take on the time-noun/adverb situation is, I think, different, than
> Mark's. I think the class of nouns that can be used adverbially is probably
> quite limited to those whose function would be *primarily* adverbial...
> For other nouns, which would be used primarily as nouns (like ram, ramvam),
> and for compounds of leS etc. compouns and ram, po etc., I'm much less
> sure...
How about THIS take on it? I see the use of time related nouns
adverbially as an extention of the lack of distinction between direct objects
and indirect objects in Klingon. Put a noun in front of a verb and it can be
the direct object or the indirect object, or even an adverbial depending on
the meaning of the verb and how that noun relates to that verb.
tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh
Qanqor vIjatlh
wa'Hu' jIjatlh
loS Hu' jIjatlh
ramvam jIjatlh
Yes, the pronomial prefix changes in these examples, but that's part of
the difference in relationship between the verb and the noun. I am not trying
to make new grammatical rules. I am not a linguist. I am noticing what
appears to be a pattern in the FEEL of the language. I had to step back to
this kind of feeling in order to cope with the lack of distinction between
direct and indirect objects in the first place. (I had a really hard time
with that, given that there were no examples in TKD at the time spelling this
out and this argument predated the audio tapes). This is just another attempt
to do that same thing. If the exercise is foolish, then I am simply
reaffirming my repeated membership among those people actively being fools.
> We know that qaSDI' X is grammatical; we aren't sure that X alone is
> grammatical as a time adverbial for forms like po. Just as with -ghach:
> we know nIHta'ghach, for example, is grammatical for "theft"; we don't
> know if nIH can be a noun. For the same reason -taHghach and -pu'ghach
> are now preferred (conservatism), I believe qaSDI' X forms should be
> preferred for forms like po and ram, and I don't think this has anything
> to do with the qaStaHvIS/qaSDI' distinction.
~mark and I both think {qasDI'} places a specific focus on the BEGINNING
of the range of time of the time noun. {qaSDI' ram} specifically refers to
nightfall, not for any time during the night. It means, "As soon as night
happens". {qaStaHvIS ram} means, "While night happens". I mistakenly
misinterpreted this to mean, "The entire time that night is happening". The
verdict is still out on {ram} alone meaning "at night", but arguments in
favor of its use are still strong. Okrand never presents the difference
between {wa'leS} and {loS leS} that you do, which is not to say that you are
wrong. It just means that we probably don't know which of us is right.
Eventually the group mind will sway one way or the other and we will have a
convention to use until Okrand makes a stand one way or the other.
> Nick Nicholas, Breather
charghwI'
