tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 28 00:27:34 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC (old): SaQum
- From: [email protected] (HoD Qanqor)
- Subject: Re: KLBC (old): SaQum
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 12:26:21 EDT
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from Sun.COM by tim.org (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA29492; Mon, 27 Jun 94 15:37:18 EDT
Errors-To: [email protected]
Received: from East.Sun.COM (east.East.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (sun-barr.Sun.COM)
id AA27686; Mon, 27 Jun 94 12:27:33 PDT
Errors-To: [email protected]
Received: from suneast.East.Sun.COM by East.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA10145; Mon, 27 Jun 94 15:26:14 EDT
Errors-To: [email protected]
Received: from klingon.East.Sun.COM by suneast.East.Sun.COM (5.0/SMI-4.1-900117)
id AA10701; Mon, 27 Jun 1994 15:25:35 +0500
Received: by klingon.East.Sun.COM (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA02383; Mon, 27 Jun 1994 15:28:22 +0500
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <[email protected]>
Errors-To: [email protected]
From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
To: "Klingon Language List" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 15:24:31 EDT
Subject: Re: KLBC (old): SaQum
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "HoD trI'Qal" at Jun 26, 9
4 2:47 pm
X-Mailer: PENELM [version 2.3.1 PL11]
Content-Length: 782
Status: R
Wow, I actually have a minute to respond to something. Imagine that.
I've seen a lot of people jumping in and reworking poor Lisa's
sentence:
> Lisa Stappvo':
>
>
> > tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh 'a vIQaQbe'
Unfortunately, everyone has been entirely ignoring what she was
(apparently) trying to say.
The intended meaning was obviously "I speak Klingon but I'm not
good at it." Everybody has been reworking it as if the intention
was "I'm not good at speaking Klingon." If I missed the message
where she said that that *was* her intention (eminently possible)
I apologize in advance.
I think the best would be pretty close to what she had to start
with, but with charghwI's(?) slight vocabulary change:
tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh 'a jIpo'be'
Let's not make the mistake of assuming that the only good translation
is one where we twist the meaning around to something other than
the intent (even though this is sometimes necessary and sometimes
desirable).
Also, there was some discussion of whether there was a language-user
distinction between -vaD and -Daq. I see no evidence for this.
First off, let's recall that there is more to -vaD than just what
it says in its initial description (alak, I can't cite the section,
not having TKD at my new place of employment yet). Recall that -vaD
is explicitly given as the thing-for-indirect-objects in the addendum.
THIS is the reason it shows up in something like jIHvaD De' yIngeH--
because I'm the indirect object, not because I'm a person. Presumably,
-Daq would carry a more spacial connotation. For instance, (and here
I get stuck, without TKD. I don't recall offhand the word, if there is
one, for "throw")
yaSvaD paq "throw" HoD "The captain throws the book to the officer"
vs.
yaSDaq paq "throw" HoD "The captain throws the book at the officer"
In short, I see very little to support the language-user distinction here.
Here's an example which seems perfectly legal, wherein -vaD goes on a
non-language-user:
targhwIjvaD potlh Ha'DIbaH "Meat is important for my targ."
Or how about the canonical: (was this mentioned already? I don't recall)
Qu'vaD lI' De' 'e' Datu'bej (or whatever it was. Again, no TKD)
Conversely, I can use -Daq on a language-user. It is just a little rare
because we don't frequently discuss people spacially. How about:
HoDDaq jIba'taH. "I'm sitting near the captain."
You certainly couldn't use -vaD here!
Oh well, enough of my rambling. I guess I'm gonna have to bring in my
TKD.
--Krankor