[881] in tlhIngan-Hol
transitivity and "They Call the Wind 'Mariah'"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri May 14 15:32:34 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: mark@cad.gatech.edu (Mark Reed)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 14:10:52 -0400 (EDT)
My personal feeling on this issue is that "wind" should be the indirect object
and Mariah the direct object. This is just screamingly obvious to me because
of the way Grammar is supposed to work. I suppose that's just a personal
prejudice, though, since all we know about *Klingon* grammar is what's in TKD
and a few other sources. Anyway, the way grammar is *supposed* to work and the
way languages are actually *used* frequently differ, as noted by Mr. Okrand in
the Introduction. And I've seen enough counterexamples (the tape and
talks by Okrand) to convince me that sticking two nouns in the object slot is
acceptable in such cases.
One of the interesting bits of trivia about the development of the language
has such an example. The line from ST3 where Kruge screams at the gunner
after the latter blew up the _Grissom_:
qama'pu' jonta' neH!
which was subtitled:
I wanted prisoners!
was actually a translation of the original line from the script:
I told you, "Engine only!"
And it didn't change until the subtitles were added. Okrand's reaction, after
pulling out some hair, was to make additions to the language so the translation
worked - namely the -pu' plural suffix, the -ta' accomplishment suffix,
and the words qama' (prisoner) and jon (capture), as well as the concept of
Clipped Klingon. Amazing what can come out of one small change...
But I digress. The original meaning is clearly an example of the 'two direct
objects' approach to telling, calling, etc. And if Okrand thinks it's okay,
what can you do? :-\
I do maintain that the indirect object form is correct, though, even if it's
not necessary, and that's what I'll continue to use. The other way just
sets my teeth on edge...
-marqoS
