nIqolay Q:
Okrand is just one person, he can't anticipate every possible question
Yes indeed; but here we're not talking about creating new words. If that was the case, then someone could say -and be correct-, that it isn't humanly possible for someone to create in an artificial language, the entire vocabulary of a real language. But the problem here is, that we're talking abour grammar. And the questions aren't that many. How long has the {ngIq} remained unclarified ? Why ? Is there a reason ? Is it so hard, for someone who communicates with 'oqranD and organizes the qepHom, to compile a list with the grammar which needs clarification and send it to 'oqranD before the qepHom asking for clarification ? How many questions would there be ? a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ? ~ nIghma' On Oct 27, 2017 7:30 PM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Another thing which perhaps needs clarification is the vonlu'.
A little bird told me, that at the kgt it is written {bIvonlu'pu'} instead of {Davonlu'pu'}.
So, this raises the question, whether the {-lu'} shoved up the {von} of {vonlu'} is the indefinite subject suffix which we all know and love, or whether it is just a {lu'} which happened to cross the street while this word was being created.
So, could someone write {vonlu'lu'} for "someone has failed utterly " ?
It's a slang term, so it might not obey grammar rules 100%. My guess is either it's simply a typo for *Davonlu'pu'*, or the slang meaning uses prefixes with *-lu'* in an unusual way that was unelaborated on. The literal translation of the slang term is "someone has trapped you", so it would make sense for the *-lu'* to be still considered as the suffix itself, even if they use prefixes differently with it. So I don't think it would make much sense to say *vonlu'lu'*. But it's slang anyway, so maybe the meaning would still get across even if it's not 100% grammatical.
And if it is indeed the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'}, then for
"someone again failed utterly", do we write {vonqa'lu'} or {vonlu'qa'} ? Because if we write {vonqa'lu'} how would someone be able to differentiate from the {vonqa'lu'} which would mean "someone trapped him/them again" ?
If the *-lu'* is supposed to be the suffix and not a part of the verb, which is probably the case, then it should be *vonqa'lu'*. Context will make it clear whether someone means the literal "he/she has been entrapped again" vs. "he/she has failed utterly again" -- if the person in question is not literally in a trap of some kind, then it's probably the latter.
I'm tired of having to "throw the cards" (greek expression meaning "trying to guess"), in order to clarify grammar which should have been already clarified at numerous qep'a'mey and qepHommey so far (as is the case with {ngIq}, the verb prefix after a {joq}, etc etc etc..).
It's entirely possible these questions had simply never come up before. Most communication can be done just fine without having to get too close to unfamiliar grammatical territory. For instance, I've been fiddling around with Klingon since the late nineties, and the question of number agreement with *joq* hadn't occured to me until a year or so ago. And the stuff from the slang section of KGT doesn't come up very often; most discussion here is done in "formal" Klingon. Okrand is just one person, he can't anticipate every possible question, and it's not like we can lock him in a room and make him answer every question we've ever had. There's not many Klingonists to begin with, so it might be a while before somebody notices some issue. This is just one of the things you have to accept if you're going to study a fictional language designed by one person.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org