[786] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: "movie"mey
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri May 7 22:55:43 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
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Fri, 7 May 93 14:33:51 -0400
>> tlhIngan ghaH James Brown'e' 'e' teHnISba' tera'ngan Hol
>> jatlhbe'bejmo'.
>I interpret this as "It is obviously true that James Brown is a
>Klingon because he certainly isn't speaking a Terran(s')
>language." But then "tlhIngan ghaH James Brown'e'" is the
>subject of "teHnISba'", and should follow it. I raised this
>question once -- how can we make a sentence (a clause) be the
>subject of another sentence? -- and I don't think there was a
>way. HoD, qay''a' Dochvam?
Yes, this topic is an ugly mess, which has been discussed here
before. At present there is no good solution; what we'd *really*
like is to be able to use 'e' as a subject, but there is nothing at
present to indicate that this is legal. (the same goes for the
occasionally seen 'e'mo'). I still do it this way sometimes,
particularly if I'm not paying close enough attention, but I readily
concede that it is flimsy at best.
>> 'ej HIvje' lughbe' lulo' tlhInganpu' 'e' lutIvqu' net Sov.
>If I've got it right (I haven't seen the movie), that means "And
>it's (well)known that Klingons really enjoy using the wrong
>glass." 'a qay' latlh: "The rover -qu' 'emphatic' may follow
>verbs functioning adjectivally. ... If a Type 5 noun suffix is
>used, it follows the verb, which, when used to modify the noun in
>this way, can have no other suffix except the rover -qu'
>'emphatic'." (4.4) Unless "in this way" refers to the presence of
>a Type 5 suffix, which doesn't make much sense as a reading of
>the English, it looks unfortunately as if a verb used
>adjectivally -- in this case, lugh(be') -- can't take any suffix
>except -qu' and/or a Type 5.
Unless one thinks of lughbe' as the kind-of-sort-of complete verb.
There are a number of listings for verbs that already have verb
suffixes on them (i.e. Qochbe', QuchHa', ghojmoH, ja'chuq, HoH'egh).
Are these separate, distinct words, or just the usual verb/suffix
combination? Will 4.4, for instance, let me say HoD QuchHa'? One
could have a whole lengthy discussions and brawls over this-- it is
not my intent to start such here-- but in a nutshell, for better or
worse, I was kind of treating lughbe' as one of these (even though
it has no separate entry). I really don't think 4.4 meant to
exclude -be' and -Ha' and am inclined to 'look the other way', but
yes, according to the letter of the law, you are correct. This is
one of about two cases where at first glance, the rule seems to be
reasonable, but, with further study, turns out to be gigantically
restrictive, so much so that I really *doubt* Okrand meant it to be
so tough. Usually, you can tell when he specifically goes out of
his way to make something difficult 'just because' (such as the
lu'/laH thing). There are about two or three of which I think he
simply didn't think through all the ramifications (the other one
that comes to mind is the business about not being able to put an
aspect suffix on a verb that takes 'e' as its object), and so I tend
to look the other way, but, if pushed, will admit are not strictly
legal.
Actually, I find it refreshing to be called to the carpet on
things like these; I feel like I spend so much of my time trying to
get others to adhere to the standards, this makes it feel less like
a solitary crusade {{:-)
--Krankor
