[665] in tlhIngan-Hol
nuqneH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Apr 23 10:08:40 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: (Mark E. Shoulson) <shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 09:06:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: Mark_Nudelman@go.com's message of 22 Apr 93 13:12 <9304222024.AA09
>From: Mark_Nudelman@go.com
>Date: 22 Apr 93 13:12
>Content-Length: 1475
> I know the Guidelines say that only the Grammarians should
> correct other people's Klingon, but I haven't seen any
> response to Doug's introduction, so I will hesitantly offer
> my neophyte reactions. Think of this as a request to
> correct my possibly incorrect corrections:
>Doug vIpong. tlhIngan Hol vIghojlI'.
>QaHra' vItIvbejmeH laDghach joq ghItlhghach.
> The first two sentences look fine to me. In the last,
> QaHra' would be QaHraj (as "help" is not an entity that
> uses language), except QaH is a verb not a noun. (I thought
> there was a noun for "help", but I can't find it. Maybe
> QaHghach, or boQghach?)
I was thinking about the first sentence, "Doug vIpong". "pong" as a verb
is glossed as "name, call", making this translate to "I call Doug".
Notably, this verb points up the real problem we have with bitransitives,
since "to name" really takes two object: the name and the thing named.
Can we throw them both before the verb in some specified order and say that
works? I can't really think of much better plans. However, to do that we
should consider the wording more carefully. Here are some options:
"Doug" jIpong'egh. I call myself "Doug". At first glance, and likely
second third and all subsequent glances, this appears wrong, since we're
putting an object in a sentence with a no-object prefix. But if we assume
we can do multiple objects, this is okay.
"Doug" vIponglu'. (someone) calls me "Doug". Again, similar problem of
two objects, since "vI-" now talks about a 1st-person object. Despite the
problem with these two, I like them. But I'd rather get clear on whether
or not I can do it...
Here's one that's probably good, and less controversial: "jIHvaD "Doug"
vIpong", "I name "Doug" to myself", taking "jIH" as an indirect object.
This may be an abuse of "-vaD", but it's probably pretyty good; one should
not apply English equivalencies too much.
Whatever; I'm not too coherent this morning...
~mark
