[801] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: "movie"mey
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon May 10 19:28:40 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: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 17:40:04 -0400
>>>> '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
Kudos, mark! majQa'! That is sufficient to make the point. No
wonder I thought it "felt" right. {{:-)
--Krankor
