tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 29 18:38:27 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: maH chaHbogh maHbe'
> charghwI' writes:
> >The Klingon mind wants to see something happen. What exactly is happening
> >in your sentence? What purpose or mission is being served? Where is honor?
> >Why would any Klingon bother with those three words? It is as bad as "taH
> >pagh taHbe'", which is the worst thing Okrand ever wrote.
>
> taghqIj writes:
> >Does this mean the Klingon mind has no capacity for extending itself?
>
> Just what would you have it extend itself to? You have put together a
> very strange "sentence" here; where do you intend it to go? What does
> it mean? I don't want to know what its English translation is, I want
> to know what you mean by it.
Well, I didn't say it -to- you. I just said it as a sentence. I would not
go up to someone and say <maH chaHbogh maHbe'> without provocation (for a
start, they mightn't speak Klingon :)
My original post was (and I quote) a test to see if what the sentence
said was understandable. It was not a test to see if it was sensible, or
if it was nice, safe canonesque Hol. I live on the edge.
>
> >The
> >original sentence in English, 'We are not who we are', was not
> >particularly nice, but that did not make it a bad sentence.
>
> "Not particularly nice" is an understatement! Actually, I believe that
> "we are not who we are" IS a bad sentence. It contradicts itself, thus
> it has no useful meaning. I repeat my original question, but this time
> in English: Why the $#@ would you want to write such a weird sentence?
> I can see no use for it. Again, what does it mean?
There is no use for it in general conversation. So what? There is such a
thing as art. Specifically, it is a translation from The X Files which
would make little sense unless I explained the rest of the episode to
you, which I'm not going to do.
The point is that because it was not a standard 'I mean this' sentence,
it added to the bizarre quality of the episode. I doubt I will ever have
to say <maH chaHbogh maHbe'>. I don't care. I just wanted to translate
it. That is how I learn languages.
> >I refuse to
> >believe that Klingons are so intellectually bankrupt as to disallow any
> >deviation from their established language. The language of the warrior
> >must be flexible. Combat situations are anything but staid. And if the
> >language must be used in odd or ugly ways to say unusual things, then so
> >be it.
>
> I don't see your point. What deviations are you referring to? Where
> is the inflexibility to which you allude? Your sentence is certainly
> odd, and what you are trying to say is certainly unusual, but I still
> don't know what you MEAN by what you're trying to say. You have lost
> the whole point of language: communication. If the words come out so
> unusual as to be difficult to understand, then choose different words.
You understood that I meant to say 'We are not those who are us', and
that's good enough for me. I didn't want to make a profound statement, I
wanted to know if I'd said something right.
> >jIbelbe'. ngong tlhInganpu' chu' ghItlhtaHvIS 'e' bochaw'qangHa'chugh,
> >Heghpu' Holvam. mu'tlheghmey motlhbe' vIghItlhmeH tera'ngan Hol
> >vIlo'nIS'a'? tera'ngan Hol lI' law' tlhIngan Hol lI' puS 'e' bochID'a'?
>
> Duyaj vay' DaneHchugh mu'tlheghmey motlh DaghItlhnIS.
> mu'tlhegh Dal DaghItlhnISbe'. mu'tlhegh val DaghItlhlaH.
> mu'tlhegh 'IH DaghItlhlaH. 'ach mu'tlhegh taQ yIghItlhQo'.
> mu'tlheghlIj taQ vIyajlaHbe'chugh munuQ neH mu'tlheghvetlh.
mu'tlheghwIj DayajlaHpu'. "We are not who we are" vIjatlh vIneHpu' 'e'
Dayajpu'. qatlh mu'tlheghvam vIjatlh vIneHpu' Dayajbe'pu' neH. 'ach potlhbe'
meqwIj. potlh pabwIj'e'.
[that third sentence: I am not sure about the accepted usage of the
questions as relative pronouns. I tried to say 'You merely did not
understand why I wanted to write this sentence.']
taghqIj
C /\ T
F /()\ C ...CM is ATMA!
C /____\ ...http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/~cthulhu
GANTA