[Tlhingan-hol] Verbing objects

[Bellerophon, modeler]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:22 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying this is a grammatical proof of anything, just that we
> might use it to help us English-addled people try to figure out whether
> an object makes sense with the given gloss.
>

No one should condone bad Klingon grammar, but if usage isn't settled,
perhaps it's "up for grabs;" that is, decided by Klingon speakers arriving
at a consensus over time. Some usage will surely be rejected by most
speakers, and some accepted. Maltz gets the last word.

As for your sentence-as-object example, I think it's flawed. If we
> assume that {Qoch} can take an object, then I interpret {maHIvrup 'e'
> wIQoch jIH matlh je} as "Maltz and I (both) disagree that we are ready
> to attack." In other words, we both think we're not ready to attack;
> we're not disagreeing with each other. Perhaps to disagree with each
> other we need to say {maQochchuq}, but then we obviously can't add an
> {'e'} object to that sentence.
>

Agreed--I was aiming for one ambiguity, and accidentally either created
another or prevented the intended interpretation.


> Like I said, if we give up a strict interpretation of our English
> glosses, it becomes difficult to decide on proper subjects and objects.
> But I think that might just be the boat we're in.
>

Not a bad situation, really. Like trading a foil for a bat'leth. Handling
it teaches the user, first, that the bat'leth isn't a foil, and second, how
it can be handled effectively. I heard someone else make a similar
comparison before--maybe Qov.

~'eD

-- 
My modeling blog:          http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog:  http://bellerophon.blog.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140328/62716dfe/attachment.html>