[Tlhingan-hol] 'arDaq

[Steven Boozer]

This thread is interesting, but *{‘arDIch} is not actually attested anywhere.  (Correct me if I’m wrong.)  {-DIch} has only been used on numbers (including “the technically ungrammatical term {paghDIch} (zeroth)”) and the noun {Hoch} (i.e. {HochDIch} “allth”, cf. KGT p.176).

AFAIK {-DIch} has never been used on a “question word” (who, what, when, where, how, how much).  In fact, the only question word that has ever taken any suffix of any kind is {‘ar}:

st.k (2/1999:  {'arlogh} “how many times?” a word that functions adverbially, made up of the question word {'ar} “how much? how many?” and the special number suffix {-logh} times (as in “six times”)

So, although I would easily understand *{lojmIt ‘arDIch DawIv}, it doesn’t appear to be kosher Klingon and would be considered a nonce expression or { mu'mey ru}:

KGT 176:  Sometimes words or phrases are coined for a specific occasion, intentionally violating grammatical rules in order to have an impact. Usually these are never heard again, though some gain currency and might as well be classified as slang. Klingon grammarians call such forms {mu'mey ru'} (temporary words). Sometimes, {mu'mey ru'} fill a void--that is, give voice to an idea for which there is no standard (or even slang) expression; sometimes, like slang, they are just more emphatic ways of expressing an idea. A common way to create these constructions is to bend the grammatical rules somewhat, violating the norm in a way that is so obvious that there is no question that it is being done intentionally. To do this is expressed in Klingon as {pabHa'} (misfollow [the rules], follow [the rules] wrongly).

[Note this is the same page that discusses {paghDIch} and {HochDIch}.]

KGT 181:  No one accepts such constructions as grammatical; their inappropriateness, the way they grate on the Klingon ear, is exactly what gives them elocutionary clout. A visitor may hear one of these odd suffixes occasionally, but, as with other intentionally ungrammatical forms, it is best to avoid using them until one is extremely comfortable with the nuances of Klingon style.

In light of this, it’s probably best to avoid these forms in lessons for beginners – which I believe was Qov’s original question.

--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons



From: Brent Kesler [mailto:brent.of.all.people at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:52 AM

wanbej He 'e' vIHar:

{lojmIt 'arDIch DawIv?} --> {lojmIt wejDich vIwIv.} --> {lojmIt wej vIwIv}.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca<mailto:robyn at flyingstart.ca>> wrote:
I too don’t have a problem with lojmIt ‘arDIch DawIv? being answered with lojmIt wej vIwIv, but understand that it isn’t an exact match. I’m not sure what the question that matches exactly in English is.


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:57 PM, <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com<mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>> wrote:
If I ask, "How many doors do you choose?" it's simple. {lojmIt 'ar DawIv?} You answer "I choose three doors." {wej lojmIt vIwIv.}

If I ask, "Which door do you choose?", it's still simple {lojmIt 'arDIch DawIv?} You answer "I choose the third door." {lojmIt wejDIch vIwIv.}

There doesn't seem to be a way to ask the question that is answered by {lojmIt wej vIwIv}. "I choose door #3."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140617/3611d897/attachment.html>