[tlhIngan Hol] expressing "they are there"

Thu Feb 18 07:18:06 PST 2021

I like this analysis. It’s well presented to explain that it is insufficient to prove that something doesn’t break rules and additionally imply that failing to prove that it breaks rules implies that it provides meaningful expression.

Also, I appreciate the insight into the use of {-‘e’} on the last noun in {X ‘oH Y’e’} sentences. {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’} does get it’s “Krankor is a Klingon” translation through the mechanism of “Krankor is the topic of the sentence, 'He is a Klingon.’” Translation compresses the latter into the former. We are talking about Krankor when we say, “He is a Klingon."

Okrand was trying to work out the mechanics of a language with no verb for “to be”, and came up with two mechanics. One is to imply “to be” in all the adjectival or stative verbs. The other is to use pronouns as both subject and verb, like {tlhIngan ghaH.} Meanwhile, in “Krankor is a Klingon,” you have this additional noun. What do you do with THAT?

So, he made the subject noun the Topic of the sentence, and instead of placing this extra noun more like other {-‘e’} marked topics at the beginning of the sentence, which would have made it {Qanqor’e’ tlhIngan ghaH}, he leaned back toward placing it where the subject would normally go, in {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’.} This doesn’t mean that {ghaH} is now functioning as a verb and not as it normally does as the subject-verb combination. It’s still the subject and the verb. What we think of as the subject in English is this other noun, marked as topic and arbitrarily placed after the pronoun in this kind of sentence.

Note that {Qanqor’e’ tlhIngan ghaH,} doesn’t break any rules and would effectively have the same meaning as {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’.} Likely, it’s a valid expression, though through habit and convention, Klingons always order the words {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’.} Using the unconventional word order wouldn’t be technically wrong, but at the least it would be “highly marked” suggesting that you don’t speak the language very well.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Feb 17, 2021, at 4:18 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 2/17/2021 3:40 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
>> I couldn't find any examples of a pronoun-as-verb followed by a pronoun, only nouns - as SuStel I believe pointed out - but I did find two comments in my notes which support Lieven's point:
>> 
>>   Okrand communicated privately with members of the KSRP that pronouns (being a subset of nouns) could indeed be used with stative verbs. Thus, {SoH po' law' jIH po' puS} is correct. (HQ 4.2:3)
>> 
>>   "Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added clarity." (TKD 52)
>> 
>> I agree with him that  {DujDaq maHtaH maH'e'} is legal, especially in a pointed contrast.  E.g.
>> 
>>    may'DujDaq maHtaH maH'e' 'ach tengchaHDaq tlhIHtaH tlhIH'e'.
>>    It is WE who are in on the battlecruiser; YOU on the other hand 
>>    are on the space station.
> It does not mean this. If it's allowed, it means As for us, we are on the battle-cruiser, but as for you, you are on the space station.
> 
> The -'e' on the subject of a copula marks it as the topic, not as the focus. In your translation, you've used focus instead of topic.
> 
> I agree that doing this does not break any written rules. Pronouns can substitute for nouns. But the resulting sentences don't mean what everyone is claiming they mean. To get the meaning you're claiming would require a pronouncement from Okrand.
> 
> 
> 
>> While strictly speaking legal, it may well be extremely rare.  In fact, other than {lujpu' jIH'e'} I found only one other example of {-'e} attached to a pronoun (albeit without a pronoun-as-verb) in Vixis's rather panicky warning to Klaa in ST5:
>> 
>>   'ach HoD, Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e' !
>>   But Captain, that course will take *US* into the [Great] Barrier as well! 
> 
> This is perfectly legal and is correctly translated. In basic sentences (not copulas or relative clauses), using -'e' marks the noun or pronoun for focus. But captain, that course will take US (forget that other ship; I'm focusing on US) into the Great Barrier as well! We know that nouns and pronouns are treated equally in this case, because the very concept is demonstrated for us with a pronoun: jIlujpu' jIH'e' (corrected).
> 
> 
> 
>> But rather than argue as to whether it's grammatical, we should ask whether it's acceptable.  This could well be considered a case of {pabHa'} to "misfollow the rules" (discussed in KGT pp. 176-189 passim).
>> 
>> (TKD, introduction):  It should be remembered that even though the rules say "always" and "never," when Klingon is actually spoken these rules are sometimes broken. What the rules represent, in other words, is what Klingon grammarians agree on as the "best" Klingon.
>> 
>> (Okrand, st.k 11/1997):  Speakers who do this seem to be aware that they are breaking the rules, so they are doing it for rhetorical effect. 
> I agree that the important question is whether it's acceptable, not grammatical. Since we have no evidence that any Klingon says things like this, we can't use the pabHa' argument to justify it. That discussion is about how Klingons break the rules, not how to justify our own use of dodgy acceptability.
> 
> Let's ask a more general question. Instead of they are there, how would you say He is the captain?
> 
> Naturally, the answer is HoD ghaH. But what's to stop someone from taking this new argument and insisting that you can say HoD ghaH ghaH'e'? Is that really the right way to translate He is the captain? I don't think so. tlhIngan maH maH'e'? 'Iv SoH SoH'e'?
> 
> What about meHDaq meHDaq HoD ghaHbogh ghaH meHDaq HoD ghaHbogh ghaH'e'? This means He who is the captain on the bridge is he who is the captain on the bridge on the bridge. Right? It follows all the rules. meHDaq HoD ghaHbogh ghaH he who is the captain on the bridge is a relative clause, which acts as a noun X and can be substituted into the sentence wherever a noun might go, and the head noun is a pronoun so it acts as the pronoun-as-to-be. There's no rule that says this is wrong...
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210218/e34eea2a/attachment-0015.htm>