[866] in tlhIngan-Hol
Instrumental constructions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri May 14 01:42:50 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: erich@bush.cs.tamu.edu (Erich Schneider)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Cc: tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us
Date: Thu, 13 May 93 12:52:14 CDT
In-Reply-To: Captain Krankor's message of Tue, 11 May 93 19:11:38 -0400 <930511
mujangneS HoD:
>>Fortunately, I think the following is a good solution. If an
>>instrumental construction (roughly "X does Y with Z") is needed,
>>prepend to the subject the relative clause "Z lo'bogh", "which uses
>>Z". For example:
>>qarDaS'Ingan DaHoHta' pu'HIch lo'bogh SoH'e'.
>>"*You*, who uses a phaser, killed the Cardassian."
>>"*You* killed the Cardassian with a phaser."
>An interesting and useful approach. I like the direction it points
>in. My first comment would be that one still needs to use the
>correct verb prefix with lo'bogh. Thus:
>
>>qarDaSngan DaHoHta' pu'HIch Dalo'bogh SoH'e'
I was wondering about that. TKD has no examples of -bogh that involve
personal pronouns. Perhaps we can add this to the "Mark Okrand
Question List"? (Since you're the grammarian, I'll take your word for
it now.)
>While I like this approach, I think we might take it a step further.
>As long as we're going to use lo', wouldn't it be closer to the
>desired meaning to use -vIS instead of -bogh?
>qarDaSngan DaHoHta' pu'HIch Dalo'taHvIS
>"You killed the Cardassian while using the phaser." or
>"You killed the Cardassian with the phaser."
I actually thought of doing this too. I passed it over because
lo'taHvIS seemed more ... clunky? A bit more tedious to use. But if
one has to use pronominal prefixes with "-bogh" anyway, using "-bogh"
only saves a syllable in 0-prefix cases.
>Of course, this still doesn't help us say "I'm going to the saloon
>with Mara." The only thing I can think of offhand doesn't quite capture the
>meaing: tachDaq maghoS mara jIH je
Yes, well, "with" has 16 or so meanings in English! (I looked it up
while thinking this up.) Somewhere, the Klingon version of Mr.
Appleyard is looking at his English analyzer and saying that English
needs a new word to express "accompaniment", because "with" is too
overloaded! {{:-) {{:-)
But, along the same lines, how about one of the following?
tachDaq jIghoS mara vItlhejbogh jIH.
tachDaq jIghoS mara vItlhejtaHvIS.
using "tlhej" "accompany"
tachDaq jIghoS mara vItay'bogh jIH.
tachDaq jIghoS mara vItay'taHvIS.
using "tay'" "be together" (assuming one can use the object of "tay'" to
indicate something the subject is together with; otherwise, the first
one is out, and the second becomes "matay'taHvIS mara jIH je tachDaq
jIghoS")
I think many concepts which are expressed "prepositionally" in
English can be expressed "verbally" like this in tlhIngan Hol.
Oh, all requests to keep Terran words in quotes have been logged.
In the future, if I decide to make up Klingon proper nouns (like
"Cardassian" above) I'll explicitly give a translation.
Also, could you send me (or post) your HolQeD articles which you have
on-line?
Qapla'!
-QumpIn 'avrIn (or erich@bush.cs.tamu.edu)
