tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 18 08:21:58 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Thinking and compounding
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:
> > trI'Qal writes:
> >
> ><< paqmey Dawam jIwambe'taHvIS >>
> >
> >as an answer regarding "hunting" books. Here I jump in:
> >
> >Let's substitute {nej} for {wam}, okay? "looking for, hunting,
> >searching"
> >
> >{wam} means "hunt for game animals," I believe.
>
>
> In fact, it's only an error if you insist on viewing the sentence
> literally. But aren't we getting tired of a purely literal language when
> (I would argue) the most powerful tool in any language is to talk about
> things figuratively? Using <wam> instead of <nej> is a very easily
> understood metaphor, something we use far too rarely in our Klingon
> compositions, and for good reason. We're all so new at the language that
> risking an unintelligible metaphor is very daring indeed. But this one is
> so straightforward; I would even go so far as to suggest that it's probably
> a dead metaphor in the Klingon language. Of course, we can't know that,
> but that's still no reason to avoid figurative language. There's plenty in
> the context to ensure the metaphor is interpretable.
Hmm, for what it's worth, I like this view. Any language usually
permits less literal, more indirect methods of making a point. Usually
this would be done to better amplify whatever subtle meaning the
speaker intends. If I say, "I am searching for a new computer", it
certainly conveys the information. But suppose we change "searching" to
"hunting", or even more explicitly, to "stalking"? If I say, "I am
stalking a new computer!", it is obvious that a computer doesn't really
require "stalking" like a game animal or other prey in order to find one.
But it does imply a careful,
determined search, and it conveys far more subtlety of meaning than
merely "searching". I must confess that one of the hardest things for me
to learn while studying tlhIngan Hol has been to consider the meaning of
the sentence, rather than the literal word for word translation. David
Barron has been endlessly patient in pointing out my failings when I do
this, and to be honest, it is usually because I don't want to go out on a
limb. Consider the following example from Lesson 6 of the Postal Course:
< ghe''orDaq yIghoS >
I KNEW what he meant, but I chickened out and translated it as,
"Follow a course to the netherworld!" David corrected me and pointed out
that what he really meant was, "Go to Hell!" (Heh.) My literal
translation was not incorrect, but it certainly didn't really say what
David intended it to. It was a valuable lesson. I know that this is not
quite the same as what Lawrence was saying about the use of metaphor to
make a point, but it does point out the pitfalls of an over literal use of
the language. Had I been more bold, more Klingon and less Human, in my
translation, then I would have gotten the MEANING, rather than just the
WORDS. I know that some would make the argument that Klingons value
precision, and thus would not approach a subject indirectly. But might it
not be more precise and efficient to use a slightly more indirect but more
descriptive way of speaking to more accurately reflect the true MEANING of
the speaker's words? I believe there is some merit to this idea.
_________________________________________________________________
Thomas M. Zeman " reH nuHmey tu'lu' "
" reH *Republican*pu' taHjaj! "
(Ex!)Chairman, Connecticut Division, United States Fencing Association
Prime Minister, Fat Dog Fencing Club, Wallingford, CT
University of Bridgeport: Bridgeport, Connecticut, USA
EMAIL: [email protected] and/or [email protected]
PGP Public Key: 0145FDE5 (Keyfile available upon request)