[85456] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Klingon Ad for my new novel!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Sun May 17 15:23:49 2009
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <3F8EF7C6-1AC9-4F85-B3C3-77B910F017DD@klingonguy.com>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 15:20:45 -0400
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
HIvqa' veqlargh!
Good suggestion, though I'd tend to say it one of two ways:
tlhIngan Hol Dalo'meH Dubba'taH laHlIj.
Dubba'taH tlhIngan Hol lo'meH laHlIj.
In other words, if the purpose clause is applied to the main verb,
it's good to indicate the subject of the purpose clause. All the canon
I've seen of this works this way, though if I'm wrong about this, I
can rely on this being pointed out to me.
However, if the purpose clause is applied to the noun, Okrand usually
leaves the {-meH}ified verb with no prefix, even if there is no third
person subject implied, like {ghojmeH taj}. He never explained why
this is the case, but that's the way it seems to work.
It's like the noun-modifying purpose clauses are a step closer to
clipping, especially in fossilized terms, like {ghojmeH taj}, which
might actually be {ghojmeHtaj} in terms of how a Klingon thinks of it.
The written language as we know it is, after all, just a notation for
spoken Klingon. It's not how Klingons write. It's for pronunciation
and recording purposes. All knowledge we have of the language is oral,
not written.
Doq
On May 16, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:
> ghItlh Doq:
>> DubtaHba' tlhIngan Hol laHlIj.
>
> Clearly your suffix order error has been included as a test.
>
> Personally, I don't like N-N-N constructions. They feel clunky to me.
> I'd have recast this as a complex sentence, thusly:
>
> tlhIngan Hol lo'meH Dubba'taH laHlIj.
>
> Or something similar. Of course, I am not one of the grammarians,
> and there may be other errors creeping in that I fail to see.
>
> --Lawrence
>
>
>
>
