[89707] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Redundancy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Thu Sep 15 14:23:40 2011
In-Reply-To: <C156260F-7C38-423D-A2E7-3DF1A6D3C03C@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:18:20 -0400
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
<lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
> We know that Klingons care little for grammatical redundancy, dropping plural suffixes where the prefix makes it clear that something is plural, etc.
Or it could just be that nouns without plural markers are merely
unmarked for a singular/plural distinction. Instead of starting with
{qamDu'} and dropping the suffix, {qam} by itself can mean "feet" even
before putting {-Du'} on it. This is an observed feature of plural
suffixes. Whether it represents a larger disdain for redundancy is not
so clear to me.
> So, I was wondering…
> DaHjaj megh wISop be'nalwI'.
>
> Does that make sense to people?
After an initial moment of hesitation at the superficially malformed
sentence, what you want it to mean is obvious. The idea does get
through, but I don't think the shortcut it takes on the way there
follows the rules. It sounds like a pidjin of Klingon and some other
language that does work the way you're trying to use it.
Without an established contect, my first impression was actually that
you were speaking to your wife and telling her the two of you would be
eating lunch. That's the only way I can analyze it as a proper
sentence.
> I could say, {DaHjaj megh wISop be'nalwI' jIH je}, but the {jIH je} really is grammatically redundant, isn't it? I mean, you know the speaker had to be part of it, being first person plural and all. Right?
The rule of {rom} is strong. It is strong enough to make explicit
pronouns unnecessary. I think it can be strong enough to coerce an
otherwise third-person noun into carrying a first- or second-person
meaning, though that is probably not a majority opinion. But I don't
think it's strong enough to compensate for the missing part of a
half-stated explicit subject. In trying to justify your intent using
grammar I understand, I keep coming up with a contradiction. "We" and
"my wife/wives" are simply incompatible with being the same subject,
and the option of assuming an elided {jIH je} to resolve the problem
does not seem obvious.
-- ghunchu'wI'
