[98433] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Multiple verb suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com)
Wed Apr 16 09:38:52 2014
From: lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E877123C1DE6@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:38:24 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
The root of the problem, as he might begrudgingly confess, is that Okrand i=
s, unfortunately, not the best Klingon speaker on the planet, yet his every=
utterance is canon. We are stuck with bad canon, and just as he has to liv=
e with movie scenes in which the process of movie making has butchered his =
honest efforts to create and maintain a consistent language, we have to liv=
e with canon examples that are obviously wrong, but by definition must be r=
ight, because they are canon.
Then again, natural languages are inconsistent, and there are many native s=
peakers of pretty much every language who regularly butcher the grammar and=
/or vocabulary, yet somebody somewhere generally understands them, while so=
meone else gets pissed off every time they don't talk "right".
So, we live in a flawed world. And when the dust settles, I'm going to spea=
k Klingon my way, whether you like it or not, and you are going to speak Kl=
ingon your way, whether I like it or not, and most of the time, we'll under=
stand each other, even though we will want to correct each other whenever t=
he other person doesn't follow what WE think is proper grammar and proper u=
se of the vocabulary.
For me, a verb with {-moH} on it has the subject being the one causing the =
action of the verb. Nobody has convinced me otherwise, and the canon exampl=
es that indicate otherwise seem to me to be really badly written Klingon, a=
nd I have no need to emulate those examples.
You can emulate them, if you feel so inspired, and by so doing inspire eye =
rolling, and snippy comments, and in the end, you will have proven very lit=
tle to anyone and we'll all get along a little less well.
Welcome to the Klingon speaking community. This is our life.
It also explains as well as anything the joy and frustration I've felt in m=
y time here. In particular, it explains my extended absences from time to t=
ime. We'd much rather fight over grammar than speak the language. That I ge=
t repeatedly sucked into it is my greatest frustration. It's a character fl=
aw. A big flaw. When I grow to hate it too much, I leave. When I forget how=
unpleasant it is, I come back.
Because I really enjoy the language, when I can make the time to use it.
wejpuH.
On Apr 15, 2014, at 7:27 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
> {DaH jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH.} is one good example. Two others come from a Ne=
wsgroup posting:
> =
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Since -moH is a
> Type 4 suffix, if a suffix of Type 1, 2, or 3 is to be used (such as -chuq
> "each other" [Type 1] or
> -nIS "need" [Type 2]), it would precede the Type 4 -moH; for example,
> pujchuqmoH "they weaken each other" or pujnISmoH "he/she needs to weaken
> [somebody]."
> =
> [...]
> =
> Thus, finally and at long last, to answer your first
> specific question, say vIchennISmoH for "I need to create
> it."
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =
> For a more full discussion:
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=3D1998-02-23-news.txt&get=3Dsour=
ce
> =
> It's worth noting that TKD 4.2.2. states
> =
> "[Type 2 verb suffixes] express how much choice the subject has about the=
action described or how predisposed the subject is to doing it."
> =
> A strict reading of this, assuming that we've got the right idea of what =
constitutes a "subject" in Klingon, would seem to indicate that a sentence =
such as {choHeghvIpmoH} could only ever mean "You're afraid to make me die.=
", and never "You make me fear death."
> =
> However, there is an apparent contradiction of this later in TKD 4.2.10.:
> {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} <it made him/her willing to die>
> =
> Then, in paq'batlh (paq'raD, Canto 7, Stanzas 6-7):
> =
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 'ach luj molor
> vangmo' molor HoSghajchoHqu' qeylIS
> 'ej SuvqangmoHbej
> =
> Suvchu'meH Suvchu'meH Suvchu'meH
> ghaH SuvqangmoHchu'
> molor
> =
> Instead, by doing so,
> Kahless grew mighty and strong,
> And it fueled his will to fight.
> =
> To the death, to the death, to the death,
> It fueled his will to fight
> To the death.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =
> However, paq'batlh also contains an example that complies with TKD 4.2.2:
> =
> paq'yav, Canto 6, Stanza 2
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =91ej loDnI=92lI=92 yIjon
> molor DaQapbe=92nISmoH
> yIghoS yIghoS yIghoS
> =
> And get your brother,
> Molor must be stopped
> Go, go, go!
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =
> So, there do seem to be some contradictions in the canon. Errors? Excepti=
ons? "Adaptive syntax"?
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
