[87660] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue Jan 12 19:59:27 2010
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:57:08 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <363912.42072.qm@web24003.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On 1/12/2010 3:58 PM, Alex Greene wrote:
>> HQ 4.4: Whether this {-Ha'} can be added to all
>> adverbials is not clear. The notes taken while working with Maltz
>> indicate that he balked at {vajHa'} ("not thus?") but accepted
>> {Do'Ha'} "unfortunately". Information on other adverbials has not
>> yet been uncovered, though it is probably in the notes
>> somewhere.
>
> vaj and chaq seem to be adverbials with a different usage to the
> others.
>
> Adverbials such as nom, QIt, pay' and SIbI' modify the activity of
> the main verb: QIt jagh HoH SuvwI' naS; pay' Heghpu' SaqwI'ghom Hoch,
> or whatever. vaj and chaq do not. They seem to be used in the manner
> of "Thus {sentence}" or "Perhaps {sentence};" the activity of the
> verb in that sentence does not alter in the way that it does for pIj
> or pe'vIl.
>
> "That is not so" would be something like "qarbe' Dochvetlh," "lughbe'
> Dochvetlh" or "teHbe' Dochvetlh" if I were trying to translate the
> above sentence. *vajHa' doesn't sit right with me either.
When Maltz balks at something, my impression is that he considers it
"not the way a Klingon would say it," not that it doesn't make sense to
him. /We/ completely lack any way to reason along these lines.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
