tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 28 02:22:09 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: The FAQ section 3.5 -- charghwI' !?!


charghwI',


Wow ! Can of worms time, eh ?

I guess I should have formulated my original question around a different
verb than {jatlh} because now I've got TWO complicated problems on my hands.
Oh well.

qaDvamvo' jIHaw'be'.

And I apologise to other list members for the amount of quoting in this but
I think that I've chopped out everything I can and have it still make sense
...


> >  == me

>    == charghwI'



> > I'll assume past tense for my english.
> > 
> > vIjatlh.  I said/spoke it.  Fine and dandy.
>  
> Not really. Unless you are saying {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh,} we have no 
> justification for using {jatlh} with an object. The ONLY object Okrand 
> has clearly used with that verb is a langauge, not a quotation.


Yikes. I had always kind of assumed that all verbs worked alike. Well, okay,
not ALL verbs. Transitive and intransitive are obviously different but apart
from that I'd assumed that I could use any verb prefix with any verb and it
would make a valid construction.

Now you're telling me that I've got to be careful about what verb I'm using
with what subject and object .. ??

I'll agree that "speak" is a slippery customer because it has a couple of
possible interpretations -- "I speak such-and-such" is essentally a
different verb from "I said such-and-such" but I would have thought that the
"say" form of {jatlh} in the addendum covered that usage quite nicely ??
What other use for the verb "say" can there be ? Just because Okrand hasn't
actually used it yet can't surely mean that we can't use it in an obvious
way ?

Using the "say" translation of {jatlh} and your assertion above then we can
only say ...


tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh.
I say Klingon Language.

Which makes little sense in english.

Perhaps Okrand put the "say" version of {jatlh} in the addendum deliberately
because his original interpretation of {jatlh} to mean "speak (a language)"
didn't cover it ?

I guess what I'm saying is do we have to wait for Okrand to have used a verb
in the form that we would like to use it before it becomes "correct" ?


> > {Qapla'} vIjatlh.  I said "Qapla'".  Hokey dokey.
>  
> This is definitely wrong. You are completely ignoring TKD 6.2.5 page 67. 


A premature "hokey dokey" then.


> Look at the example:
> 
> qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'
> HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'
> 
> Both equally state, "I told you not to interrupt me." Literally:
> 
> I told you, "Don't interrupt me."


Okay then -- what if I didn't WANT a direct object ? I'm not saying anything
to anyone specific, I'm just stating

I said "Qapla'".



Hmmm. I just sat and thought for a while (serves me right for listening to
Tori Amos CD's while writing this stuff ...)

I *SUPPOSE* that I'm ALWAYS saying something to SOMEONE aren't I ?

"I said Qapla'" has an implied speakee anyhow, doesn't it .. ? I can't
really be speaking to NOONE can I ?

Wow ! I ask a simple question and the answer is "yup, you've been doing it
wrong just like EVERYBODY ELSE !!"

I can see that I'm going to have to think a LOT harder about what I'm saying
in future.


> A prisoner says to the guard, "I am hungry."
> 'avwI'vaD jatlh qama' jIghung.
> 
> Finally, we get {jatlh} used in a quotation (after so many years of 
> using it in quotations ourselves). And it is being used intransitively, 
> with the INDIRECT object being the person addressed. We have apparently 
> been misusing {jatlh} almost every time we have ever used it.
> 
> The ONLY object Okrand has ever used for {jalth} is a langauge.


You just wait. I bet after all this Okrand will chuck out some little quote
for a magazine (Reader's Digest, I'll bet) that throws all this discussion
out the window !! {{:-)


> See? You've got it all wrong when it comes to quotations. We've ALL had 
> it all wrong all along.


It's a relief that it's not just me then {{:-)


> > SoHvaD {Qapla'} vIjatlh.  I said "Qapla'" for/to you.  Fine - TKD p180.
>  
> That should be:
> 
> <<Qapla'!>> SoHvaD jIjatlh.
> 
> or 
> 
> SoHvaD jIjatlh <<Qapla'!>>


I was just following the constructs in TKD p180

yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'
The prisoner gave the officer the knife. (Him/her/it gave him/her/it for the
officer)

So I don't see why any other verb doesn't do the same

SoSwI'vaD "chicken" vIghoDpu'.
I stuffed a chicken for my mother. (I stuffed him/her/it for my mother)

Perhaps with {jatlh} things are different but I don't see why ... (see
next bit below)


> > {Qapla'} qajatlh.  I said "Qapla'" to you.  I spoke to you: Qapla' !??
>  
> This one could possibly be right, but it is most probably wrong as well. 
> There is no canonical example of {jatlh} being used with the person 
> addressed as the object. We have seen {tlhob} and {ja'} used in this way 
> with the person addressed as the object, but what holds for one verb 
> does not necessarily hold for another, as I showed earlier with "go to" 
> and "visit". I now think of the verb {ghoS} similar to the English 
> "visit" in that the direct object of it is the indirect object of most 
> other verbs.


I think what I said about the "say" translation of {jatlh} holds true for
this bit. "Say" and "tell" are essentially the same except for the
deliberate nature implied with "tell".


> > I've just not had call to use verbs like this before. I don't see how one
> > can just "stick a noun on the front" and automatically imply an indirect
> > object. For me, the only "correct" way is as explained in the TKD addendum
> > using {-vaD}. Perhaps I just need a little coaching on some wierd
> > object/subject thing that I've messed up on somewhere ... ??
> > 
> > Not that I wouldn't accept the form as valid, of course, but I still have to
> > ask "Where does this usage originate from ?" because if I didn't, I'd be
> > falling down on my duties as a keen newbie learner {{:-)
>  
> If you get away from direct quotation ...


A good idea !! I confused the original issue somewhat didn't I .. {{:-/


> ... and just look for examples of the use of a prefix pointing to an
> indirect object instead of at the object, then there is nothing in TKD to
> explain this, but there are canonical examples. Of course, that means I
> have to find one, right?
> 
> Umm. It took longer than I thought. Oh well. TKW, page 203:
> 
> I must show you my heart.
> tIqwIj Sa'angnIS.
> 
> You would expect:
> 
> tlhIHvaD tIqwIj vI'angnIS.
> 
> But that's not what Okrand wrote. Get used to it.


I would love to agree with you but most of the phrases in TKW are idiomatic.
I'd not trust them as a definitive example of the correct way to phrase
everyday Klingon -- Okrand regularly says that "traditional" sentences can
be quite removed from the proper sentence structure that we're supposed to
be using.

Would

{tlhIHvaD tIqwIj vI'angnIS}

be wrong then ? Or is it just another way of writing the same thing ?


> It's a grammatical shorthand, like English's "He gave her the apple" 
> being identical to "He gave the apple to her" even though the helper 
> word is different in the two examples.


I'll assume that the answer to the above question is "yes, both are correct"
then.


> In Klingon, if you see an explicit direct object and the verb prefix 
> disagrees with that object in person (1st person, 2nd person, 3rd 
> person), then the prefix is pointing to the indirect object. Get used to 
> it.


Hokay. {{:-)


> > jIghojlaHmeH HIDev, charghwI'.
>  
> qaDev. chotlha'laH'a'?


jIyajlaw', 'ach ngoDmeylIj ngachruplu' 'e' vIQub.



nI'jaj yInlIj, 'ej batlh bIHeghjaj.


Qorbeq


--

+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
|  http://www.parallel.demon.co.uk   |          "Still a newbie!"          |
|---                              ---+---                               ---|
|         Parallel Dimensions        |  pabwIj yIlughmoH jIjatlhHa'chugh   |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

Back to archive top level