tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 09 09:35:39 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: More Translations...
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: More Translations...
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 11:35:35 CST
- In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Dec 1996 10:23:52 PST." <[email protected]>
> On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 08:27:23 -0800 Marc Ruehlaender
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
Seems like I forgot to quote clearly who said what, so charghwI' got
a little mixed up in whether he responded to me or to SuStel :-/
> > >
> > > Here's another double-object problem. charghwI', of course, would adore
> it,
> > > but I don't.
>
> I agree with most of the rest of what you said (except for the
> statement that I would like something I really don't like).
>
With "you" you probably meant me :) while it was SuStel who wrote the
above... sorry for that
> > The object of {ghoj} is the subject (= topic :) you learn about, so that
> > should still be the object of {ghojmoH}, right?
>
> mughojmoH *Qanqor*.
>
> jIHvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH *Qanqor*.
>
jIyaj
> > > Ugh. This one is probably the worst of the lot.
>
> You are perceptive to see the problem.
>
I'd hope the BG would be :)
> > > The problem is similar to
> > > the one with {ghojmoH}. There's an added complication. The object of th
> e
> > > English translation of {tuQmoH} "put on (clothes)" would be the piece of
> > > clothing. The object of the English translation of {tuQHa'moH} "undress"
>
> > > could NOT be the clothing, it would have to be the person who is being
> > > undressed. The negation of a verb seems to be changing its object!
>
> This is probably why {tuQHa'} is defined at all. If the meaning
> of a root verb with suffix is different in meaning or
> relationship to objects than one might expect, it is appropriate
> to make a point of this and define the word-with-affixes
> specifically in the dictionary.
>
> > I don't think so.
>
> I do think so. I think that is why {tuQHa'moH} exists in the
> dictionary at all.
>
I think it is still possible to have clothes as the object of
"undress", although I see your point about Okrand's being more
likely to give "put off (clothes)" as a translation in that case.
But then, do you see a way to translate "put off (clothes)"?
(If we cannot use {tuQHa'moH}?)
> > > Some might interpret this as evidence that words which are verbs with
> > > suffixes and which are extra entries in the dictionary are seperate words
>
> > > in their own right, and they work just like their English glosses. I
> > > still don't buy it. My guess is that Okrand simply did a sloppy job
> > > explaining this.
>
> That is possible, but the word "glosses" is starting to bother
> me. [snip very much] If you can't deal with the
> "glosses", then you probably should go off and study French
> instead of Klingon.
>
Just wanted to point out that you were replying to SuStel again!
> > As for {tuQHa'moH}: {tuQHa'} means "miswear" to me, so I think
> > {tuQHa'moH} is more probably derived from {tuQmoH}, i.e. it means
> > "put off (clothes)" and the clothes are still the direct object
> > while the one being undressed is the indirect object.
>
> You are ignoring the definition. {-Ha'} means different things
> on different verbs. Sometimes it means "wrongly" {yajHa'}.
> Sometimes it indicates a reversal of action {QeyHa'moH}.
> Sometimes it is simply a very strong negation {parHa'}. That is
> the main reason it exists in explicit definitions in the
> dictionary. Okrand is showing us how {tuQHa'moH} is to be
> interpreted. Take his word for it. It does not mean you made a
> mistake while dressing. It means you reverse the process of
> dressing.
>
Isn't that what my reasoning above said? It was meant to.
(i.e. I agree with you here.)
> there are other words that can serve your meaning.
>
> ghaHvaD DaS vIteq.
>
There you are! Settles the affair for me. And at the same time
teaches me that in English you don't _put_ off clothes but
_take_ them off... :)
HomDoq