tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 28 04:57:16 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
jatlhwI' po'be'
>From: [email protected]
>Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 18:51:49 EDT
>>>And just for the hell of it, charghwI' offers something
>>>COMPLETELY different:
>>>tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhmeH jIpo'qu'be'.
>>>"For the purpose that I speak Klingon, I am not very skilled."
>>>It just seems a little more to the point.
>>I don't know, it doesn't work too well for me. "I'm not very skilled in
>>order to speak Klingon"? Sounds like not being skilled is a prerequisite
>>to speaking Klingon! Like skilled people can't do it. I think "-DI'" is
>>more appropriate here, really.
>>tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhDI', jIpo'qu'be'.
>>"When I speak Klingon, I'm not very skilled."
>>I suppose you could also do
>>tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh 'e' vInIDDI', jIpo'qu'be'.
>>"When I try to speak Klingon, I am not very skilled."
>>I suppose one could use "-taHvIS" here as well, but the connoted
>>relationship implied by "-DI'" works better.
>>>charghwI'
>>~mark
>I don't believe your usage of {-DI'} is quite correct. Think all the way to
>the actually meaning of {-DI'}, rather than generalizing it to be a mere
>substitute for every instance in which the English "when" would be
>appropriate. {-DI'} has a much narrower meaning than "when" has. {-DI'} is
>described to mean "as soon as". It indicates simultaneity with the action
>described in the main clause, altho the verb which tacks on {-DI'} carries
>the connotation of being very brief, an instant in time, as opposed to
>{-vIS}, which indicates a longer, more continuous event.
"-DI'" is given as meaning "as soon as", yes, and indicates a simulteneity
with the main clause. However, note also that the meaning "as soon as"
implies "and not before", a meaning which is not implied by the "while" of
"-taHvIS". It is this "and not before" that makes the two suffixes
different, not so much duration. "-DI'" calls attention to the fact that X
happened as soon as/when Y happened, while "-taHvIS" is just giving
background information of something else that was happening at that time
and makes no claims about which waited for what.
To me, this implies a *pragmatic* (not semantic) use. A *connotation* (not
denotation) attaches to "-DI'", implying (if only by post hoc ergo propter
hoc reasoning) that the two clauses have a closer relationship than just
simultaneity. Not necessarily that one caused the other, but there's some
sort of relationship there. Consider:
"De' lI' Sovlu'DI', chaq Do'Ha'"
this is from Conversational Klingon, translated as "Knowledge of useful
information may be unfortunate". Note the construction: "when useful
knowledge is known, (something--the situation, maybe) may be unfortunate."
>Your usage was: {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhDI' jIpo'qu'be'}. But this really means,
>"As soon as I speak Klingon, I am not skilled," rather than your intended
>"*Whenever* I speak Klingon..." Klingon does not have a suffix indicating
>such a general or repetitive relationship between clauses, like the word
>"whenever" in English.
"Whenever" and "when" are *mighty* close concepts. You could just as
easily have said the above line from CK with "Whenever" in English... yet
Okrand uses "-DI'". Many languages don't draw a distinction between "when"
in a general sense (i.e. whenever) and "when" in particular. Even English
isn't very clear on that point. "When I speak Klingon, I tend to bite my
lip." Are you saying that I can't say that without saying "whenever"?
I think the CK example is a pretty good support for this reading of "-DI'".
>Now, of course, I'm going to offer my own suggestion, which is a bit closer
>to that of charghwI':
>{tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI' po' jIHbe'}
Hey, I like this one! "po'" used adjectivally here to modify jatlhwI'...
works for me!
>Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
>ghItlh 'o' : Yet another odd Okrandism, from PK:
>"Eat everything or you will die without honor."
>{Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'}
>I guess {-be'} doesn't just negate verbs, then, but entire clauses.
Yeah, I noticed that, and I guess it makes sense. Nobody ever said it had
to be just negating the verb...
~mark