tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 27 15:41:03 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIjatlh 'e' yImev
According to [email protected]:
>
> We have been convoluting the Klingon language long enough.
My, but this seems disrespectful of those who have been here
working with the language far longer than you. Do you really
expect this to be well received?
> From a linguist
> who has travelled the world and scratched the surface of 28 languages, 5 of
> which I am comfortable in, and in that my MA is in language arts, I hereby
> claim that beings with the intelligence to speak language logically devise
> simple means for expressing themselves.
The credentials of several people who frequent this list might
dwarf yours, as impressive as yours may be. Meanwhile, many of
the best Klingon speakers here are not linguists at all. Top of
the list is Krankor, the grammarian who STARTED this list and
who has regularly published illuminating articles in HolQeD.
Next, consider ~mark, who probably speaks more languages than
you at greater depth, despite that trait being an avocation for
him. I guess he just makes more money working with computers?
Then there is Guido#1, the WonderKid who just stormed off
because he considers the rest of us to be boring. (He has done
this before.) While his skills are phenominal, he is still in
high school. And then, we can't forget Holtej or Nick, deep in
their studies of linguistics with a peculiar interest in the
Warrior tongue.
There are many others (please do not be insulted by omission.
If I try to list ALL of the significant voices here, this could
be a very long post, and I'd STILL forget someone). Meanwhile,
the thing that helps us acccomplish the most with the language
is mutual respect, and the thing that interferes with it most
is disrespectful arrogance. Brilliant people often exhibit
arrogance, but it is rarely productive toward group goals. So
please step down off your soapbox and join us at the table as
peers.
Besides, the examples of Klingon text you've written here so
far are not so impressive that you carry the force of authority
you seem to seek...
> My first project is: Although TDK p.65, =A76.2.5 states that <'e'> is a
> relative pronoun connecting sentences as objects to verbs mainly having to do
> with speech or knowledge,...
I must be going senile. I don't have TKD with me right now, but
I do not remember this restriction. I've had the impression
that most transitive verbs could be used with {'e'} in the
right context, as you next relate.
> TKD p.172, Appendix, Phrases clearly uses the
> pronoun <'e'> as a connector after <yImev>, stop doing something. Now this
> <'e'> cannot be so simply translated as "that."
bIjatlh 'e' yImev.
This is literally two sentences which we incorrectly punctuate.
It could be written as:
bIjatlh. 'e' yImev.
You speak. Stop that.
We understand "that" to refer to the previous sentence. In
looser translation, we say, "Stop talking!"
> This sentence is more like
> "Stop [your] speaking." Thus, I contend that one of my previous attempts at
> making up a Klingon sentence may yet have merit: <moQ luQuj matlh mara je
> 'e' jeS worgh> was intended to mean "Worf participated in playing ball with
> Maltz and Mara."
My problem with this attempt is the word choice {jeS}, which
means "participate", not "participate in". It strikes me as a
rather intransitive verb. Your sentence literally translates
into the two sentences:
"Maltz and Mara play ball. Worf participates that."
See? Doesn't that sound rather awkward? Furthermore, "play
ball" is probably a little too idiomatic to presume that it
translates well. We do not know that {Quj} exhibits
transitivity in this specific way.
> No. 2: Why must we contort our brains into such constructions as
> <machHa'ghach> when there is already precedence for <tIntaHghach>?
On this point, we are somewhat in agreement, though I am even
less comfortable than you with unnecessary nominalization. It
is one of the areas of Klingon grammar in which I am somewhat
of an extremist within a global discussion where others hold
opinions that nominalizations are not such a bad thing.
Krankor, for whom I have profound respect, disagrees with me on
this point.
My defense is that I believe that the resulting text that I
write in Klingon is very easy for others to understand. That is
my goal beyond all else. Unlike many, I don't especially care
if any particular English text gets translated or not. I'm not
interested in quick recipes for moving large amounts of English
prose and poetry into Klingon.
Instead, I am interested in improving my ability to gracefully
express a wide range of concepts in Klingon with clarity. If a
statement in Klingon cannot be readily understood, I have
little interest in it. If it can be understood CLEARLY, my
interest is greater. If it involves a concept that others
expected Klingon to fail to carry well, my interest is highest.
That is why I'm far more interested in recasting a thought so
the resulting Klingon statement is clear than I am in shoving
any specific grammatical construction toward a task that it may
not ultimately be well suited for accomplishing.
> <-taH> is
> used several times in the <-ghach> construction examples. Furthermore,
> <machHa'> seems to come across as the "undoing of being little." Even
> <machbe'ghach>, whether better or worse, seems to come across as "[the] n=
> ot
> being small."
I rather much agree.
> No. 3: <puq latlh> vs. <latlh puq>. Surprise!!! Klingon DOES have
> adjectives, TKD pp.49-50, =A74.4. Contrary to pure adjectival use as in
> English (which I arguably have called Federation Standard, viz. Michael and
> Denise Okuda's Star Trek Chronology), the Klingon grammarians' concept of
> adjectives seems to the Terran to be noun-noun constructions.
For one with such linguistic credentials, I would have expected
you to understand the difference between a noun and a verb. In
Klingon, noun-noun constructions are possessives, while
adjectival constructions involve descriptive verbs used
adjectivally.
> In that Noun 1
> possesses Noun 2, the adjective-noun 2 no longer only states (stative verb
> adjective, viz Chinese, etc.) the attributes of Noun 1 but also is the
> possessed noun. Thus, <puq mach> does mean "little child."
I have no argument with our conclusion, though I think your
means to it are rather presumptive with little grounds (if any).
> More literally,
> it means "the little[ness] of the child."
You've just made a quantum leap within your own imagination
which in other setting might be called "psychotic". Your
reality is not my reality. You've just taken a stative verb,
nominalized it with no justification whatsoever, and related it
to a possessive structure. It is not that I don't understand
the steps of what you've done. I simply don't accept them.
> Now, <puq latlh> is "the
> additionality of a child," ergo "an additional child."
But, this really IS a noun-noun construction. Like any such
construction, it may be translated as "The child's another one"
or "another one of the child", or since obvious plurals often
omit the plural suffix, "another one of the children", which is
the form of translation English speakers will find most
comfortable.
> Although the Klingon
> grammarians claim that this is a Noun 1-Noun 2 construct, Terrans will do
> well to look upon the second noun (???)
latlh is a noun. Deal with it.
> as an adjective while learning the
> nuances of "feeling" the Klingon language.
Waaaay off base. I'll be surprised if others will back you up
in this presumption.
> No. 4: Textual analysis has led me to "discover" some words
> that are not in
> TKD. <peH> lupeH mu'meyvam
All I have for {peH} is the first syllable of {peHghep}, which
is tantamount to a Klingon finding significance in finding the
word "fath" in "father" and theorizing on what it means. "Fath"
must be a verb, right? A "father" is obviously one who faths.
So, what does a father do? Well, fathers read the paper and
smoke pipes, so to fath obviously is the combination of reading
the paper while smoking a pipe. You can't find it in your OED?
Hey! English is a living language, remember? I don't care if
you can't find "fath" in the dictionary. *I* know what it MEANS.
I've read several messages now referring to how nobody here
understands your word {peH}, yet you remain disinterested in
providing either the source or meaning for it. At best, you are
stylishly failing to communicate, which is not exactly the
mission of this list.
The primary point I'd like to make is related to a quote from
ST3. As Kruge said, "Who I am is not important." My authority
and your authority are insignificant. The important thing is
the further development of the language, both by increasing the
number of us who understand it and by expanding the breadth of
its expressive capacity without abandoning the structure and
vocabulary provided by Okrand. Each of these goals reinforce
the other, since the more interesting the language becomes, the
more there will be who want to use it, and the more fluent
speakers we have, the more likely that this greater number of
minds will be able to explore new areas of potential expression
and clarity within the language.
If what you offer here furthers this mission, your
contributions will be highly valued and your time here will be
long and enjoyable. If you waste that opportunity through
egocentric gestures of pseudo-authority, your time here will be
brief and frustrating (unless you enjoy talking to yourself,
since there is a limit to how long the rest of us will choose
to respond to you). Your choice.
> Qapla'
>
> peHruS
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |