[89708] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: Redundancy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Thu Sep 15 15:21:54 2011
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:16:58 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAFK8js11aSW6guVhU5Fm3sOiFCMkesAxMi4e--pAhZH9woqfSA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv 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?
>>
>> 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?
ghunchu'wI':
> Without an established context, 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.
If I heard that sentence, I would also analyze {benalwI'} it as direct address:
DaHjaj megh wISop, be'nalwI'.
Today we eat lunch, my wife.
Unless you're Victor Borge, people can't hear your punctuation - or lack thereof - in speech.
> 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.
I can't add anything to what ghunchu'wI' has already said other than to pass along some insight from Marc Okrand on using the verb prefixes:
"Klingon grammarians refer to the rule that governs the use of pronominal prefixes as the rule of {rom} (literally, "accord"). Grammarians of Federation Standard and many Earth languages call the phenomenon agreement. Thus, in the case of Klingon, the prefix used must "agree" with the noun to which it refers; if the object noun is plural, for example, the prefix must be one that is used with plural objects. Agreeing is not a trait typically associated with Klingon nature, however, and apparently, at least under certain circumstances, this may extend to grammar as well." [KGT 172]
"Though plural suffixes are not obligatory on nouns ({SuvwI'} can mean either "warrior" or "warriors"), Klingons are fussy about the verb prefixes." [msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand 9/97]
"The other tricky thing is some people say you can put any prefix on any verb. I suppose that you can, but just because you can doesn't mean that you should." [Okrand to charghwI', HQ 7.4]
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
