tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 21 11:37:26 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Analysis of {mo'taq lut}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Analysis of {mo'taq lut}
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 14:37:17 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "A.Appleyard" at Mar 21, 95 7:57 am
While I'm no longer a grammarian, and so I probably shouldn't
be responding to this before ~mark, neither is A.Appleyard, who
so swiftly responded to this KLBC post... Here are a few
thoughts on some parts of this:
According to A.Appleyard:
>
...
> * SuvwI'Hom ghaH neH mo'taq
> @ Motak was merely a small warrior
I suspect that the original intent was, "Motak wanted to be a
little soldier." If that is the case, it would be much better
stated as:
SuvwI'Hom moj mo'taq neH mo'taq.
Okrand specifically states that this kind of redundency is fine
in Klingon and it clears up all the potential ambiguity. I
agree that ambiguity is not the root of all evil, but when it
is this easy to eliminate, I go for it.
> * batlh mo'taq ghojmoH 'e' nID qeylIS
> ---- batlh ---- - N:honor - A:with_honor
> @ Kahless attempted that he teach Motak (about) honor
> @ Kahless attempted that he teach Motak honorably
> === Here and below the two meanings of {batlh} cause ambiguity.
> For "with honor" I am tempted to suggest {batlhtlhej} = "honor-accompany".
That is completely without grounds. You can't paste a verb onto
an adverbial and expect it to make sense in Klingon. For
myself, I simply never use {batlh} as a noun-object, since
{quv} serves nicely in that instance. {batlh} at the beginning
of a sentence that I write will always be an adverbial, unless
it has a noun suffix on it.
...
> === What does {qem} mean and where was it published?
It is a verb for "bring" and it is in the main word list of TKD.
...
> * vajDaj pong qeylIS
> @ Kahless called his warrior
> === Is {pong} correct for "summon" rather than "give a name to"?
I'd probably prefer {rI'}.
...
> * 'ach 'etlh lo'laHbe'chu' mo'taq 'ej 'e' leghlaH Ha'DIbaH
> ---- 'ach ---- - C:[but|nevertheless|even_so|however]
> ---- 'etlh ---- - N:sword
> ---- lo'laHbe'chu' ---- - V:be_worthless VS6:[clearly|perfectly]
> @ But Motak was clearly worthless (with his?) sword and animal could see that
{lo'laHbe'} can mean "be worthless", but it can also mean
"cannot use". You differentiate by whether it is being used
transitively or intransitively. Here, it means, "But Motak
clearly could not use his sword..." Here, I suspect {-bej}
might be a better suffix. I don't believe that {-chu'} really
means "more definite than definite". I think it means "in a
clear or perfect manner". Was Motak really perfectly unable to
use his sword? What exactly does that mean? I suspect that he
was definitely unable to use his sword, and so {-bej} would be
the better choice.
> * 'ach ghojQo'
> @ But don't learn!
> === I suspect that {Qo'} is imperative unless there is an explicit subject:
> {'ach ghojQo' ghaH} = "But he refused to learn" (intended meaning).
Interesting idea. I don't believe this is quite true, but it is
an intriguing idea all the same. An imperative usually requires
a prefix, since the null prefix is not imperative. The setting
doesn't seem right to justify clipping the imperative prefix
here, so I think most people would interpret this to mean "But
he refused to learn" with or without the explicit pronoun. I
often like explicit pronouns for clarity, but I don't think one
is quite so required here as you suggest.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |