<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">I like the analysis in this discussion. I’ve always thought that pronouns were not the verb “to be”. Klingon lacks the verb “to be”. It’s just that Klingons use pronouns in a way that we would translate as the verb “to be”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It was pointed out that pronouns can use verbal suffixes, but remember that only a very limited set of verbal suffixes are allowed. We could probably use ANY verbal suffix if pronouns were ever to function as actual verbs. Also, the {-‘e’} on the final noun would be unnecessary if the pronoun were acting as an actual verb.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The real point here is that the grammar for pronouns used as “to be” is like the grammar for comparatives: It is unique within the language with its own special rules and limits. You can’t take the grammar of a normal Klingon sentence and try to apply it to sentences built around pronouns used as we understand the verb “to be”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It’s as if it were something from some other language altogether, snipped and dropped into Klingon, without reference to Klingon’s other rules of grammar.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If you want to make weird but arguably not illegal constructions, you can, but that won’t make them not weird.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 21, 2020, at 12:00 PM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/21/2020 11:45 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:77b8d34b-2aa4-0706-592d-96227e3521b7@gmx.de" class="">Am
21.01.2020 um 17:28 schrieb nIqolay Q:
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" style="" class="">I'm not sure it's
quite so clearly defined as that. Copula pronouns can
<br class="">
take verbal suffixes, after all. And we know from the latest
qepHom
<br class="">
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.qephom.de/book/qepHom2019_p_21.jpg" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.qephom.de/book/qepHom2019_p_21.jpg</a>)
that not all Klingons
<br class="">
analyze words into distinct parts of speech the same way.
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Be careful not to over-interpret this too much. It was only said
that
<br class="">
verbs and nouns can be the same word, based on TKD; Don't
interpret it
<br class="">
too much that words can mean anything now. Proniuns were NEVER
treated
<br class="">
as a verb, it's only the English translation that uses a verb (to
be).
</blockquote><p class="">Agreed. The text of the qepHom page goes out its way to avoid
declaring whether identical nouns and verbs are, in fact, the same
word, or whether they're homophonous, but different, words. The
TKD Addendum describes "nouns and verbs being identical in form."</p><p class="">But nIqolay's point is not without merit: Klingon parts of speech
may not be utterly rigid. Of course, there are formally only the
three parts of speech: <b class="">DIp, wot, chuv,</b> and a lot of <b class="">chuvmey</b>
act like, stand in for, or have properties of <b class="">DIpmey</b> or <b class="">wotmey</b>
at times. But there are clearly limits. You could not, for
instance, use a pronoun as an adverbial or an adverbial as a
pronoun, despite the fact that they're both <b class="">chuvmey.</b> Since
we lack vocabulary for the subtypes of <b class="">chuvmey, </b>one might
think that Klingon linguists don't care to develop too detailed of
a formal description of the structure of their language.<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>