[2800] in tlhIngan-Hol
po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Jan 26 10:57:31 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: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 15:47:30 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:50:44 EST <9401251759.A
A07251@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>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
Actually, I find that a good way of looking at it. I think there really is
some support for bare nouns floating around out there to be used
adverbially. I seem recall Krankor once telling me that heard from Okrand
that {?Duj jIghoS} is legit for "I go to the ship", with "Duj" as a sort of
adverb of place/implied locative. The ? is because I'm really not sure I
remember aright. If this discussion doesn't bore the captain to tears
maybe he can set me straight.
>> 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.
I always liked "qaStaHvIS" better than "qaSDI'" anyway, perhaps because of
the half-connoted causality of "-DI'". I wouldn't believe in a difference
between {wa'Hu'} and {loSHu'} either (note in my Jonah: loSmaHleS *nInvey*
Qaw'lu'!: in forty days Nineveh will be destroyed. I thought that was an
excellent use of it, myself). I do think that qaSDI' can carry the
connotation of the beginning edge, but I'm not sure it's as strong as
you're thinking. To make sure of that, I might use {qaSchoHDI' ram}.
BTW, I got to thinking after writing about how {qaStaHvIS ram jIQong}
didn't mean "I sleep all night"... Well, then, how *would* you say "I sleep
all night" or "it rained for four days"? Well, the latter certainly
wouldn't have "loSHu'", as charghwI' feared in passing, it'd have "loS
jaj". Well, by my own argument, "qaStaHvIS loS jaj SIS" couldn't mean "it
rained for four days", just "it rained over the course of four days, not
necessarily all of it". Well, one answer is pragmatics: a listener could
assume that I meant "all four days" here, since it doesn't conflict with
the other meaning and it's more likely to be said (which may not be the
case with qqaStaHvIS ram jIQong). It's a possible answer, but not a good
one; certainly not good enough to be the only one. Then I thought I could
use {qaStaHvIS loS jaj Hoch SIS}, with Hoch to indicate the whole of the
time. Not bad, but not bvery elegant. Then I realized it: if you reverse
things, you get the right meaning: SIStaHvIS, qaS loS jaj: While it rained,
four days occurred. I sleep all night: jIQongtaHvIS, qaS ram. Now you
have the reverse problem, that you might be saying you sleep longer than
the night, but then again, the English has the same problem, and we get
around it with more verbiage, why can't Klingon cope the same way? I
thought it was cool.
~mark
