[tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat

[SuStel]

On 2/20/2017 11:03 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>
>
>>     naQjej rurmo' wot, ghantoH <chuH> vIlo'. vay''e' chuHlu'bogh
>>     'oSbej ?chuHlu'wI' 'e' SIbI' vItlhoj.
>
>     *vay'e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej *chuHlu'wI' SIbI' 'e' vItlhoj*
>
>     or
>
>     *SIbI' vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oHSbej *chuHlu'wI' 'e' vItlhoj*
>
> <'e'> tlha'laH chuvmey 'e' vIQub. 'a jIQochbe', <'e'> nung chuvmey 
> vImaS je.

*'e'* lutlha'laHbe' chuv. chaq /TKD/ 6.7 mojaq /-'e'/ je DaqelHa'.


> In English passive voice, this is true. *-lu'* is not English passive 
> voice. In Klingon, when *-lu'* is added, the object remains the object.
>
> This is the language used to decribe what goes on in Klingon. My point 
> is the construction i

Your sentence seems to have been cut off.

The language used to describe what goes on in Klingon is 
"someone/something does something to me" and "someone/something does 
something to them," and so on. Only after giving examples in most 
combinations does TKD say "Verbs with *-lu'* are often translated into 
the English passive voice." It then gives the SAME examples translated 
into passive voice. The point is clearly not that what's happening in 
Klingon is grammatically equivalent to English passive voice; it simply 
means that passive voice is often a more colloquial translation. It 
sounds stilted to say "someone/something remembers you"; it sounds 
natural to say "you are remembered."



>
>>     So'bogh DoS DIp chu' jal rom chut je,
>
>     /The rule of accord envisions a new, hidden target noun/?
>
> My language here is awkward. An example is called for. When {mulegh 
> ghaH} is changed to {vIleghlu'}. The rule of accord requires the 
> prefix {vI-}, so although semantically there is a null agent and 
> first-person singular patient, grammatically the rule of accord treats 
> this situation as if there were a first-person singular subject and 
> third-person singular object, although that object is merely a 
> grammatical fiction. This is clearly a special situation, and I have 
> to wonder whether OVS accurately reflects how Klingon linguists would 
> interpret it.

*mulegh ghaH* is not changed to *vIleghlu'.* You construct *vIleghlu'* 
directly. There is no transformation from one to another. When I am 
thinking in Klingon and I intend to use an indefinite subject, my mind 
goes straight to *vI-* being the proper prefix.

The *vI-* prefix does not, according to the description in TKD, treat 
*vIleghlu'* as if it had a first-person singular subject and a 
third-person singular object. TKD explicitly says the prefixes are used 
to mean something else. With *-lu',* *vI-* MEANS first-person object. 
There's no grammatical fiction going on; the prefixes are simply 
reassigned for *-lu'.*

Now, is it possible that there is some "grammatical fiction" reason WHY 
the prefixes are reassigned? Maybe, but that's pure conjecture and 
there's no evidence for it anywhere.


>
>>     'a potlhbe', mu'tlheghDaq DI'rujDaq ghap DoS DIpqoqvam chu'
>>     tu'be'lu'mo'. wotvaD DoS DIp 'oHtaH nungbogh DIp'e'. moHaqvaD
>>     chuHwI' DIp mojlaw' nungbogh DIp. ghu'vam vIqelmeH DIvI' Hol
>>     qechmey /subject/ /object/ je, jImISqu'choH. 'ach vuDlIj QIjmeH
>>     /subject/ /object/ je wuv SuStel. rarchu'be' tlhIngan Hol,
>>     qechmeyvam je 'e' vIQub.
>>
>>     ghu'vam le'mo', SuStel vuD vIHon. latlh meq vIghaj. 'oSlaHbe'
>>     wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je, 'eb lonlu'pu' 'ej pagh chavlu'.
>
>     Hoch 'eb jon Hol 'e' SaHbe' Hol.
>
> 'a chaq SaH tlhInganpu'. 'eb tu'DI', lulo' 'e' bot nuq? lubotlaHbe'ba' 
> tera'ngan Holtej. 'a 'eb lulo' luneHbe' tlhIngan, SIghlaHbe' je 
> tera'ngan Holtej.

Arguing over whether a Klingon would or would not care about a 
particular grammatical feature is not a useful line of reasoning, in my 
view.


> DaH jIyevnIS 'a jItaHqa'. SuStel, choQaHqangmo' choquvmoH. qaQeHmoHmo' 
> jIQoS. jItlhIj 'e' DalajlaH'a'?

HIja', 'ej DaH SoHvaD jItlhIj je. Doj QIjmeH QInlIj. jIQoch 'ach DaH 
batlh choghoHpu'.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170220/392db034/attachment-0016.htm>