[798] in tlhIngan-Hol
"movie"mey
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon May 10 16:54:26 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: Mon, 10 May 93 15:21:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: Captain Krankor's message of Fri, 7 May 93 14:33:51 -0400 <9305071
>From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
>Date: Fri, 7 May 93 14:33:51 -0400
>Content-Length: 3287
>>> '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.
Well, there's some evidence that it's legal, from the tape, in teaching
plurals, there's an example, "ten useless tribbles", "wa'maH yIHmey
lI'be'", clearly using "lI'be'" as an adjective.
~mark
