tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 05 10:07:00 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: An offer you shouldn't refuse!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:13:43 -0700
>From: "Kenneth Traft" <[email protected]>
>>On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 [email protected] wrote:
>>tlhIngan Hol "Bible" 'ay'Daq mughlu'bogh, Dochvam vIlegh. "John 3:16"Daq
>>"believe in him" tu'lu', 'ej {*ghaHDaq Har} ghItlhlu'pu'.
>>>Mark Shoulson replied:
>>>That would probably be Glen Proechel ... But I tend to doubt
>>>it. In what we've seen of Klingon, -Daq is pretty explicitly used to be
>>>spatial only (cf. qaStaHvIS wa' ram... for "in one night.") Believing IN
>>>someone is a very English-specific idiom. It can mean "trust" (in which
>>>case why not use "voq"?) or "believe that the person exists" (in which case
>>>you should say that as well. This is obviously an idiomatic contraction of
>>>a more complex concept). I don't think you can generalize from English to
>>>Klingon that -Daq should be used in this manner; Glen apparently does.
>>>Your mileage may vary.
>Glen would like to reply that yes it was his translation "Good News for the
>Warrior Race". I am answering for Glen because I am keeping in close contact
>with him and will be handling the Interstellar Language School's affairs while
>he is doing his Mission work in Russia.
I'd heard about this.
>Glen's reason for using <-Daq> comes from the reference in Conversation
>Klingon when they referenced to Kahless's spirit within you (I don't have the
>exact quote sorry), The phrase "within you" was translated <SoHDaq>. Glen
>does not think they were refering to a physical space in this instance.
Interesting. The toast in reference, though, is explicitly poetic, and
what's more a lot closer to literally meaning "inside you" than "believing
in someone." If you say it stretches the meaning of -Daq to
non-spatialness, you still have a ways to go. The spirit of Kahless is
said to be "living," and metaphorically living somewhere, and that living
is taking place "in" you. Presumably meaning through your actions, "in"
your mind. "Believe in" is still a far cry away. Where's the location,
even notional? "Believe in" means "believe that (object) exists" or
"believe what (object) says, trust (object)." "Live in" can at least be
seen as a fairly straightforward metaphore for the "location" of inside
someone's body or soul. I don't see any such location where the believing
happens with "ghaHDaq Har." Is there some sort of metaphore involved that
one's mind somehow goes to be inside Kahless (or his spirit) and there that
mind/soul sits and meditates and "believes"? That's possible... but by no
means obvious or transparent.
>Glen also wants to point out that <qaStaHvIS> actually means "while it is
>happening" or "During" rather than merely "IN".
Yes it does. As, indeed, does "in one night" in the English.
>Also "believe in" is used in all Indo European languages.
An excellent thing to remember, next time I'm considering an Indo-European
language. All Indo-European languages (to my knowledge) also have verbs
that do not vary by object, only subject, and don't use OVS word order.
Does that mean Klingon doesn't? (to say nothing of color-words, which if
Nick Nicholas and the linguists he cited in HolQeD are right are not
possible in any human-originated language.) Klingon has been compared to
just about every language out there by various people; Basque speakers find
similarities to Basque; some others draw parallels to the Native American
languages Okrand specialized in. I wouldn't think that it's a safe bet
that it's Indo-European.
This isn't to say that such a thing isn't possible. This is an important
point, since of course, I *do* very often refer to other languages when
discussing tlhIngan Hol. But the point is to remember to use those
comparisons to show what *could* be with Klingon, not what *should* be or
*must* be. The fact that a given language does things such-and-such a way
does not imply that Klingon *must*... but it does imply that Klingon
*might* and more importantly, that Klingon need not do it as another
language does.
>>On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 [email protected] wrote:
>>tlhIngan Hol "Bible" 'ay'Daq mughlu'bogh, Dochvam vIlegh.
>>>Mark Shoulson replied:
>>>You may have to say "<Bible> 'ay' mughta'lu', 'ej 'ay'vamDaq..."
>Glen believes that [email protected]'s translation is correct, but suggested
>using <'e'> instead of <Dochvam>. Also that Mark made a typo on <mughlu'ta'>
>(<ta'> is a type 7 suffix and <lu'> is a type 5).
Without seeing the preceding sentence, I'm not sure about 'e', but I think
you're right about it. And yes, -ta' is misplaced. Hagh qoHpu' neH
HeghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMgYqLMppGeTJXWZ9AQHAkgMArWjjnuLRWT6P5BepxzqG/EsKBqYkzxqz
yEFGj2u342FiUXPwJNex6FOUmBvDEG22YUHysRincdtDSJNZVi6T7k3yCVK4aAau
VjcGYtb2MjxobiWlRFJJ0m1xsGRwhRAV
=+iC4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----