tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 28 10:00:24 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: yIwIv

According to Mark E. Shoulson:

Thank you. This is EXACTLY what kind of response I was looking
for. Now, I have information with which to accept, reject or
improve my original idea. If I get no feedback, then my
resources are decreased.

> Responding to charghwI''s request for input regarding his use of yIwIv for
> "which"...
> 
> I think part of why there hasn't been too much response is because there's
> not much fault to find with it, grammatically.  Something like "*nuqDIch"
> is obviously questionable from a grammatical perspective, and while "targh
> nuq" may be less so, it's certainly questionable semantically.  yIwIv is
> obviously correct grammatically (make sure you use tIwIv when it's "which
> targhs are to be killed?"), and its meaning is transparent.

Thank you. I wanted this confirmation. I also wanted to hear
about problems with it, like those that follow.

> I'm not so sure that it works in all cases, though.  I haven;'t got too
> many specific examples in mind, but it may not be sufficiently general, or
> it may also fall prey to being too idiomatic.  It may sound like I'm asking
> you to choose something when in fact you have no control over it at all,
> but are merely indicating a "choice" that may hev been made for you,
> perhaps confusing you...  For example, plans have been intercepted, and
> your captain asks, "choose the planets which the Terrans will attack."
> "You mean I get to decide?"  I suppose if you view "wIv" as more like
> "indicate" (le'moH?) it might be clearer.

le'be''a' ghu'vetlh? Isn't that special?

Actually, given your setting, that the captain knows that you
have the intercepted plans and is asking, "Which planets will
the Terrans attack?" the sentence could just be:

tera'ngan nab DaSov. yuQmey'e' HIvbogh tera'nganpu' HI'ang!

> I also have a gut-feeling that there are simply constructions for which
> yIwIv just falls apart (no examples now, so I may be wrong.  It's happened
> before.  At least twice.)  It also doesn't help us with the "which"
> constructions that are not questioning.  We've been using questioning
> pronouns as relatives sometimes, on the grounds that it's like two
> sentences with the second answering the first (translating "I saw what you
> did" as "What have you done?  I saw that." [nuq Data'pu' 'e' vIlegh] or
> "The what which you have done I saw" [nuq Data'pu'bogh vIlegh]).  It should
> be noted that this is NOT cannon usage, but on the whole is more reasonable
> that it might seem at first glance.  

For this, I would tend to say:

Qu'lIj Data'pu'bogh vIleghpu'. I would avoid using a question
word when you do not intend a question. wanI' DaqaSmoHbogh
vIleghpu'. That's just another approach.

> But I don't think yIwIv will help us
> in "I saw which targhs the captain liked."

That doesn't really seem to need more than {targhmey'e'
parHa'bogh HoD vIlegh.} or {targhmey'e' parHa'bogh HoD
vIghovlaH.}

> This isn't to say that yIwIv is not a good answer to the "which" problem.
> But I tend to doubt it's the only one.  There's no reason why all cases of
> "which" should be handled by even remotely similar constructions in
> Klingon, just because they're the same in English.  yIwIv is one more tool.

I suspected the same. In the post where I asked for this
feedback, I think I offered {yIwIv} and {yI'ang}, {'Iv} as a
possessor and {-bogh} as tools, giving a context in which each
of them would be effective in handling "which". The only reason
I made any indication of {yIwIv} over the others is because it
seems to cover the greatest number of cases.

> ~mark

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level