[87418] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Numbers with pronouns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Wed Dec 2 13:51:56 2009
In-Reply-To: <4B16AC35.9060607@trimboli.name>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:49:49 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:04, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> For all that pronouns equal "to be" in English, they're still just
> pronouns. They can be used in some verb-like ways, but they're still
> pronouns (or, according to Klingon grammarians, {chuvmey}). Saying
> {tlhIngan jIH} is the same as saying "me Klingon."
I am unclear why you are saying that pronouns act in "some verb-like
ways." Nowhere in TKD does Okrand give any indication that he is
exaggerating when he says that the pronouns are used as verbs. If
they were just pronouns, they wouldn't take aspect or other verb
suffixes.
<tlhingan jIH> is not even close to being the same as "me Klingon."
The most obvious difference between the two being that the Klingon is
grammatical, while the English is not. There's really no justification
for translation a grammatical utterance in one language into an
ungrammatical one in another.
> Therefore, I consider {jIQub vaj jIH} the "right" way to say this, but
> it is equal to saying "I think, therefore me." It's not grammatical, but
> the point is more important than the grammar.
Why isn't it grammatical? And why have you translated jIH as "me" here?
