tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 13 11:37:50 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Motto
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Motto
- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 14:37:42 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromMarc Ruehlaender on Fri, 11 Oct 1996 08:12:32 -0700)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 08:12:32 -0700
>From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
>In message <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
>> We came, We saw, We conqured!
>>
>> mapawta' maleghta' macharghta'
>>
>I haven't seen any grammarian's response to that so far.
>Maybe I missed it. Anyway, I'd like to ask some questions
>regarding the interpretation of this.
>i) I assume that the Klingon rendering implies - as the
>English - that the actions occur in sequence. Now does
>the {-ta'} there mean, that the first action was completed
>before the next _began_ or just before the next one was
>_completed_? (as opposed to e.g. {mapawta' 'ej maleghta'
>'ej macharghta'})
As opposed to? I'm not sure I understand. The English (and I think the
Latin as well) is an example of asyndeton: there *should* be conjunctions,
by rights, but there aren't. The meaning is pretty clear, and I don't
think the Klingon loses anything by omitting the conjunctions either. When
you think about it, the sentence-conjunction "and" (in its simplest
meaning) doesn't usually add much that really makes a difference. If I
assert statement A in one sentence and in the next sentence I assert
statement B, haven't I just asserted both statements A and B? What does
conjoining them add? It adds an implication of connection, and in some
situations it adds more, but on the whole saying two statements is
asserting both of them, just like asserting their conjunction.
As to the timing... Don't get caught in details. Think of the sentences as
they come in: we have/had/will have arrived. We have/had/will have seen.
We have/had/will have conquered. The grammar doesn't imply any temporal
ordering, nor does the English (or Latin) for that matter. The ordering is
purely on the semantic/pragmatic level.
>ii) can one _intentionally_ "see" s.th.? i.e. does {legh}
>encompass meanings like "observe" or "watch"?
Hmm. Good point. Something to consider.
>HomDoq
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMmE28MppGeTJXWZ9AQEf1AMAoxgDdcbiMsqMsJMk5jF0VFm3FeNj+taY
PN6TS3TNix8uSRwhnSAJFio0z5bzFuOrrLzsUgDw0xVUwSp/1l0gNzXhS9yP3Sg6
FpH8h+soFlEJ01FwlpI8qkbXdhHWac4l
=vIua
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----