[3332] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Word used by Marnen
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Feb 17 22:54:52 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: "Kevin Wilson (DV 1994)" <sparks@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 22:40:19 -0400 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199402162319.SAA15499@startide.ctr.columbia.edu>
On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Actually, what I meant was "A definite warrior knows when he has finished
> speaking", but maybe I didn't word it as well as I might have. In any
> case, yes, we don't really have relative pronouns or temporal or spatial
> ones in Klingon, all we have are the question words. We've generally
> adopted the convention to use them, with the proviso that we realize what
> it comes down to. If you conside the sentence as "When has he finished
> speaking? That, a great warrior knows", you can see that pragmatically it
> *does* make sense to permit the question works as relative pronouns.
> "Where do they keep the chocolate? I know that": nuqDaq yuch lupol 'e'
> vISov. It works, I think, for "I know where they keep the chocolate."
> Now, there *is* some ambiguity between "a great warrior knows when he has
> finished speaking" and "When does a great warrior know he has finished
> speaking?", namely, whether the "ghorgh" applies to the main clause or the
> initial subordinate one. Bummer, huh. This kind of ambiguity is perfectly
> natural, I think, and it makes plenty of sense that Klingon should have to
> deal with it. We have the same problem with relative clauses as objects
> and "-vaD" or "-Daq" or "-mo'" words at the front of them: "DujDaq puq
> DaqIppu'bogh vIlegh" could mean "I see the child which you hit on the ship"
> or "on the ship, I see the child which you hit" (i.e. the seeing or hitting
> may have happened on the ship). We cope.
>
> ~mark
>
I am really uncomfortable with using question words in this way. It
definitely goes against the canon. I think, however, that we have another
way out, namely rewording sentences. I do not know if rewording would work in
all instances, but in this case it does. How about
jatlh 'e' mevnISDI', 'oH Sov SuvwI'
How does this sound?
Qapla'
Kevin
