[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: -Daq, and pronouns with -taH

[John R. Harness]

Hi all,

I'm afraid I'm not going to be very helpful. As Voragh's examples show,
there is some variation. My understanding of this variation is that 1)
perhaps, as with nuqDaq, there are stylistic preferences for certain
phrases; and 2) plenty of people forget -- or clip -- the -taH.

I know at recent qep'a'mey people have gone around the room saying {pongwIj
'oH X'e'} without many eyebrows raised.

Kyle: That's always how I've understand the pronoun-as-verb constructions:
that the pronouns can take as many verbal suffixes as one likes.

'arHa



--

Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/>
Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Dillon, Kyle <kyledi at spu.edu> wrote:

> On a related note, have you seen this article on academia.edu by Nick
> Nicholas?
>
> http://www.academia.edu/1278393/e_qun_Del_Topic_Focus_and_Copular_in_Klingon
>
> He talks about constructing zero-copula sentences in Klingon (which, by
> the way, is also how Arabic and Hebrew work). In such sentences, the
> pronouns start to do the work of copula verbs, even taking on verbal
> suffixes, as in the examples you gave. But that makes me wonder, to what
> extent can we add other verb suffixes to pronouns in zero-copula sentences?
> For example, in the sentence: "Worf was/has been an officer," could we say, *yaS
> 'oHpu' wo'rIv'e'* (with a type 7 perfective suffix on the pronoun)? Or
> how about "Kirk must/needs to be our captain" as *HoDma' 'oHnIS qIrq'e'* (with
> a type 2 suffix of necessity on the pronoun)?
>
> Anyway, I'm not really answering your question, I know. My hunch is that
> in the examples you give, the sentences could be written either way, with
> the *-taH* suffix simply emphasizing a continuous action/state.
>
> Kyle
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:18 AM, "chransberry at gmail.com" <
> chransberry at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am a little confused on the matter of the interaction between -Daq and
> pronouns with -taH.
>
> I think, from responses to my sentence exercises, that {Saj nujDaq bIHtaH}
> is preferred over {Saj nujDaq bIH}. So I would say {DujDaq jIHtaH} and
> {HuDDaq chaHtaH} etc. That's easy enough.
>
> The confusion comes from a sentence I learned before I even joined the
> list, and a subject line soon after. They weren't confusing then, but now
> in light of this -taH rule I'm a bit confused. The sentences were {nuqDaq
> 'oH puchpa''e'?} and {nuqDaq ghaH 'arHa'e'?}
>
> So which is correct:
> {nuqDaq SoH?}
> or
> {nuqDaq SoHtaH?}
> ?
>
> And which of these is correct:
> {DujDaq 'oH De'wI''e'.}
> or
> {DujDaq 'oHtaH De'wI''e'.}
> ?
>
> Thanks,
> -QISta'
>
> *Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160416/b8611a35/attachment-0001.html>