[tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Oct 4 09:14:39 PDT 2017

On 10/4/2017 12:00 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:58 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com 
> <mailto:mihkoun at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     It is highly unlikely, that a mere mortal -i.e. someone who isn't
>     a friend of maltz-, would ask and his question would be answered..
>     However, since even us -the little people-, are allowed to dream,
>     I would like to ask that these questions are eventually clarified
>     at the qepHom to come..
>     1. the prefix of a verb, which follows {joq}, if both nouns joined
>     by it are singular.
>     2. the prefix of a verb, which follows {joq}, if one of the nouns
>     is plural.
>     3. the {ngIq}.
>     4. the {vabDot} (although I'm not quite certain, that the
>     clarification needed here, is with regards to the grammar, or its
>     meaning).
>     5. {Duj wejwIjDIch} or {DujwIj wejDIch} ?
>     6. Can we have two {qu'} or two {be'} on the same word ?
> I have a question of my own I'd like to ask: how far does the prefix 
> trick stretch? Can it only be used with some verbs or some meanings of 
> *-vaD*? Or is any use of *-vaD* eligible (provided all the relevant 
> nouns are in the correct person)? For instance, do these work:
> *bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang* -> *bangwI', wa'SaD SuvwI' 
> qaHoHqang */"My love, I'd kill a thousand warriors for you."/
> *jIHvaD DuSaQwIj Deq qawmoH qachvetlh* -> *DuSaQwIj Deq muqawmoH 
> qachvetlh* /"That building reminds me of my old school."/
> *jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* -> *muqab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* /"Too much 
> Terran food is bad for me."/ (*chaq DaH jIwoghpu'...*)

These are questions I brought up when the prefix trick was first 
explained to us (I was not a fan, and I still think it was Okrand's way 
of covering sloppy translations from English). I don't think you can use 
it for any application of *-vaD,* only for when *-vaD* indicates an 
indirect object. In your *qaHoHqang* example, for instance, *SoH* is not 
an indirect object: *SoH* benefits from the action, but the action does 
not result in something actually given to *SoH.*

I think the prefix trick works because Klingon prefixes must agree with 
the "object" of the verb, not necessarily only the "direct object." In 
certain cases where it is clear that a direct object is not being agreed 
with, the prefix can agree with an otherwise unstated indirect object. 
It's not that prefixes can agree with any object they like, direct or 
indirect; it's just that under certain circumstances the prefix can be 
reassigned to do different work than it usually does.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171004/611d1a4d/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list