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

[John R. Harness]

...after feeling inadequate about that non-answer I've tried looking again
through TKD but am not turning up anything definitive. I guess I'll have to
stick with "it's ambiguous-slash-people get it wrong" for now.

Also, Kyle, I'd like to read that article but can't get to it through
Academia.edu's billion questions. Do you know of another source?




--

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

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:44 PM, John R. Harness <cartweel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20160416/625715c2/attachment.html>