tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 14 22:15:12 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tlhab jaj

At 09:34 AM 8/14/96 -0700, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:25:17 -0700
>>From: Robert Darke <[email protected]>
>
>On a list like this, it's often important to know whom you're quoting.  Try
>to include some kind of reference when you quote.
>
>>> > QaQ 'oH. vIleghpu'.
>>> > jabbI'IdghomDaq lut wanI'mey DIja'chuqchugh 'ej vaj lut De' wI'angchugh,
>>> > (lut legh 'e' Hech nuvpu''e')vaD lut bel QIH 'oH
>>> 
>>>   {lut legh 'e' Hech nuvpu''e'} =  is a relative clause used as a noun, and
>>> that noun wants a -vaD suffix: "for people who intend to see the story":
where
>>> should the -vaD go?
>
>
>>I'd have cast it using "if" rather than "for" in the context of "if people
>>intend to see the story". I don't know but I think it conveys the meaning
>>better than {-vaD}  --  {-vaD} seems to me to indicate a recipient of
>>something or some action and saying that you are not doing something "for
>>them" using the {-vaD} form of "for" seems strange to me as the intent
>>doesn't come across.
>
>>Hmmm. Maybe I'm talking rubbish.
>
>>Lets see ...
>
>>{lut lulegh luneHchugh vay' lut vIQIHqangbe'}
>
>>Which I mean to be read as
>
>>"If they want to see the story (THEN) I'm not willing to damage the story".
>
>>hmmm... I see your point though ... where should I have put the "-chugh" ?
>
>>It could be read
>
>>"If they want to then they will see the story. I am not willing to damage
>>the story"
>
>>which is a subtly different meaning.
>
>I don't think so.  I think your translation is just right as it is.  Think
>of it this way.  What is the condition?  What has to be fulfilled for if
>clause to come true?  Not seeing, but wanting.  It's not "If they see..."
>it's "if they want...."  So it has to be "lut lulegh luneHchugh..."
>
>Aha, but your problem is that it could be viewed as "lut lulegh, luneHchugh
>vay'.  lut vIQIHqangbe'," as separate sentences, with "lut lulegh" as the
>*result* of the -chugh clause, not as its sentence-as-object.  Yep, that's
>ambiguous all right.  Context is fairly clear here, though, and I'd think
>the translation you want would be the more common reading.  As an aid to
>such things, many people are careful to put "vaj" before then-clauses (as
>in bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh), and also tend to put "if" before "then" in
>general.  If you said "lut lulegh luneHchugh vay', vaj lut vIQIHqanbe'," it
>would be even more compelling to read it the way you intended it (though
>still possible not to).  You'd have been more likely to say something like
>"lut luneHchugh vay', vaj lulegh.  lut vIQIHqangbe'" if you wanted the
>other meaning.
>
>"vaj" is your friend.  So is context.


This is where I am at a disadvantage for not having been onthe list for a
year, so please bear with me if this is an old, already-resolved argument. :)

Once, loooong ago, there was an arguement about this kind of construction,
where someone wanted to put a Type 5 Noun suffix on the head noun of a
relative clause.  Of course, this conflicts with the need for -'e' at times,
as you can't have both -'e' and -vaD at the same time.  I normally don't
double-quote (in fact, I hate it--heh)... but here is again the sentence at
the beginning which started all of this:

>>> > jabbI'IdghomDaq lut wanI'mey DIja'chuqchugh 'ej vaj lut De' wI'angchugh,
>>> > (lut legh 'e' Hech nuvpu''e')vaD lut bel QIH 'oH
>>> 
>>>   {lut legh 'e' Hech nuvpu''e'} =  is a relative clause used as a noun, and
>>> that noun wants a -vaD suffix: "for people who intend to see the story":
where
>>> should the -vaD go?


I don't know if I was here for the end-result of the "can you use a type 5
on a head noun" debate, but one arguement I remember comming up was that, if
you just used the Type 5 you wanted on the head-noun, then the topicalizer
would be unnecessary, as context would be clear (I'd also like to point out,
since several people missed it, that there really needs to be a -bogh on
<Hech>, unless I REALLY misunderstood what the original poster was trying to
do/say... which is very possible).  The original sentence, written this way
(with -bogh added and a typo corrected) would be:

        jabbI'IDghomDaq lut wanI'mey DIja'chuqchugh 'ej vaj lut De' wI'angchugh,
        lut legh 'e' Hechbogh nuvpu'vaD lut bel QIH 'oH

I may be opening a whole new can of worms, but this makes good sense to me.
Anyone else? :)


--tQ


---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet
Klingon speaker and net junkie!
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'!  toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'!  SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...

Back to archive top level