tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 28 09:39:54 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIjatlh 'e' yImev
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:53:35 -0400
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: [email protected]
>Finally, Klingon is a language more than a devised toy. Hayakawa's
>definition of language is "...spoken by one or more persons with
>understanding of the concepts attempting to be conveyed by one or more other
>persons." Erin Asai states that language translation must not be forced, but
>must be idiomatic, i.e. one must translate by "feeling" the language. I am
>rather confident of my feelings regarding adjective-noun parausage. I still
>contend that <mach puq> means "The child is little" and <lang puq mach> means
>"The little child is slender" through the "feeling" that <puq mach> is not
>only a noun modified by stative verb-adjective following it, but is a
>noun-noun construct meaning "the little[ness] of the child." Still, one
>definitely must NOT translate <lang puq mach> as "The littleness of the child
>is slender."
If "puq mach" means "the littleness of the child", then "lang puq mach"
*would* mean "the littleness of the child is slender." "HoD qam" is a kind
of "qam", not a kind of "HoD". If "puq mach" is construed as N-N, then it
would have to be a kind of littleness. But while I can say "puq mach
vIlegh", how can I see littleness? OK, I can see that a child is little.
But I can say "puq val vIleghpu'" and not mean "I saw the intelligence of
the child/I saw that the child was intelligent", since when I saw the child
I may not have known about the intelligence. I don't see how you can
insist that "puq mach" means "the littleness of the child" and then say it
never means that anywhere. It only means it in some mystical sense, but
never when in any sentence construct? Then in what sense does it mean it??
~mark