tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 06 15:48:45 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
E Pluribus Unum
On Sun, 5 Mar 1995 chargwI' wrote:
> According to Christopher Dicely:
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Mar 1995 charghwI' wrote:
> > > ------------------------------
> ..
> > > wa' qum mojchoH qum law'.
> >
> > Interesting. I hate to question you on grammar (for the same reason I
> > would hate to question Laura D'Andrea Tyson on economics) but shouldn't
> > that be:
> >
> > wa' qum lumoj law'bogh qum(mey).
>
> Well, you got me on the {lu-}. I forget this prefix a high
> percentage of the time I should use it. Unfortunately, I need
> it rarely enough that I am not sufficiently prompted to begin
> remembering it. As for the rest, it works, though I don't see
> it as especially better. Does, "The governments which are many
> become one government," really improve "The many governments
> become one government."?
Not really, but is "qum law'" really "many governments"? While the
meaning is clear, the grammar seems to me to be wrong.
"law'" in your version seems to be an adjective but it can't be since
tlhIngan Hol doesn't have them -- if its a verb, then qum has to be the
subject so:
"wa' qum moj law' qum"
BUT this is just "? becomes one government. Government is many"
so, the "law'bogh", I think, is necessary. I might be wrong.
>
> > "The government which is many becomes one goverment" or
> > "The governments which are many become one government"
> >
> > Hm..., maybe not. Looking back at TKD, law' is mighty irregular. For
> > example, the main use in TKD is in comparatives where it goes in what
> > would seem to be the wrong place:
> >
> > A Q law' B Q puS -- but if we take law' (v) to be many and puS (v) to be few,
> > this should be:
> >
> > law' A Q 'ej pus B Q
>
> Okrand notes that this is a very irregular form and is strictly
> followed as the only comparative, so you just have to take it
> as it is rather than figure what it "should" be. It IS what it
> should be. Think of {HoD tIn law' be' tIn puS} as "Many big
> men; few big women." This equates to "men are bigger than
> women." (Let's not argue about the truth of the statement and
> just recognize it as a grammatical example).
>
> > since the "Q of A" and "Q of B" are the subjects of their clauses. Is
> > there any justification for extending this grammatical inversion outside
> > of comparatives?
>
> No.
>
> > Another thing: isn't the suffix -choH redundant with the verb moj?
>
> So long as {moj} and {mojchoH} offer different meanings, it
> seems like {-choH} should be a valid addition to the verb. In
> this case, my intent was primarily one of emphasis. This is not
> just a cyclic thing where the governments flow back and forth
> between being many or being one. These many governments had
> never been one before and there was a big change and they
> became one and stayed that way. The change is the issue. Why
> bother puting it on a coin if it weren't a big deal, right?
Okay, I can see that. Actually, now that you put it that way, I actually
think the "-choH" should be in the translation...
>
> > Or
> > wouldn't it imply something like "starting to become"?
>
> Or changed to become.
>
> > For example, if I
> > said:
>
> > jItaQchoH "I am becoming weird, I am starting to be weird"
> > ghojwI' tlhIngan Hol jImoj "I am becoming a student of the Klingon language"
> > ghojwI' tlhIngan Hol jImojchoH "I am starting to become (just becoming?) a
> > student of the Klingon language"
> >
>
> Your word order on the noun-noun construction is off here.
> You've said, "I become a student's Klingon's language," or "I
> become a language of the Klingon of the student," or some
> mixture of the two forms. You say that you are becoming the
> language possessed by a Klingon who is owned by the student.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Er, wait, wrong mailing list:
pIch vIghajchu'
That should have been "tlhIngan Hol ghojwI'"
neH tlhIngan Hol vIghojchoH
>
> You can avoid this whole mess to say:
>
> tlhIngan Hol vIghojchoH. "I begin to study Klingon language."
True... I wasn't (I admit) looking for the best way to say it, although I
shouldn't have missed the obvious possessive error. I was trying to
think of examples to make my point about moj v. mojchoH
> This is one of those differences between the English tendency
> to say, "I am a student" vs. the Klingon preference for "I
> study." Klingon favors action over labels. English favors,
> "Give my your answer," while Klingon favors, "Answer me."
>
> >
> > I think, also, that your translation loses some of the connotation of
> > the original -- it implies, IMO, more than just a merging of governments
> > but of people as well,
>
> I must confess, this interpretation conjures images of
> cannibalism. How else can many people become one person?
Peoples might have been a better word... I meant the society, not just
the government.
>
> > if specificity as to exact topic is needed, I think:
> >
> > wa' qo' moj law'bogh qo'
>
> or {wa' qo' moj qo'mey law'.}
>
> or how about {wa' wo' mojchoH wo'mey law'.}?
I think "wo'" is, yes, closer than "qum" to the idea being translated.
>
> > But maybe I'm reading the implication of "qo'" wrongly -- I'm not using
> > it in the sense of "world" but "realm" which I think has more the flavor
> > of a nation or polity than "qum" does. But that type of realm may be
> > outside the meaning of "qo'" and TKD doesn't make that clear...
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >
> > wa' ghom rewbe'pu' lumoj law'bogh ghommey rewbe'pu'
>
> Unfortunately, this can mean, "The groups' citizens, which are
> many, become the citizens of one group."
QI'yaH
Ambiguity sucks!
> Hmmm. And Now For
> Something Completely Different:
>
> vIHbe'taHvIS qummey law'vo' wa' wo'Daq ghoSta' rewbe'pu'.
>
> It's not efficient, but I kinda like the way it twists my brain.
>
> > But I don't think that, as a motto, the specificity is needed, I think:
> >
> > wa lumoj law'wI'
> >
> > is a perfectly fine motto.
>
> This kind of vague nominalization bothers me.
Actually, the more I think of it, I think I agree -- I think specificity
is a Klingon attribute that probably ought to be preserved in the language.
>
> > > Don't EVER translate something you don't understand.
> >
> > 'e' yIlob
> >
> >
> > >
> > > charghwI'
> > > --
> >
> > ghojwI'
> >
> >
> > Oh, and how do you get OUT OF digest mode?
>
> Fast for about a week...
>
> charghwI'
> --
Does it have to be all in a row, or can I do it Carlos Salinas style?
ghojwI'