tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 22 21:15:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chechtaHvIS chIj
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: chechtaHvIS chIj
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:01:15 -0400
From: WestphalWz <[email protected]>
>In a message dated 98-04-20 23:06:25 EDT, SuStel review peHruS' translation
of
>a morbid story a friend had sent to peHruS.
>I will not comment on all the corrections in just this one reply.
>
>1. The first comment is really important in that SuStel and peHruS feel
>strongly and differently about the transitivity of Klingon verbs. peHruS
>feels that [almost] any Klingon verb, as long as it is not a stative verb
>only, may be either transitive or intransitive. Thus, in the case of {jeS}
>(participate), when there is an object of the verb, the translation of
{jeS}
>becomes (participate in). My evidence lies not so much in what TKD says
about
>verbs but in what TKD says about -Daq (locative) (TKD 3.3.5). This suffix
>indicates that something is happening in the vicinity of the noun to which
it
>is attached. It is normally translated by an English preposition: to, in,
>at, on.
>
>Although I could be wrong, I strongly feel that -Daq (locative) indicates
>where the action is taking place, not the inseparable concepts of
>verb+preposition in Gothic languages. Therefore, I do not believe
that -Daq
>completes the prepositional concept "in" when it follows {jeS}. Thus,
{veng
>wa'DIchDaq lopno' vIjeS} is the sentence I strongly prefer over {veng
wa'DIch
>lopno'Daq jIjeS}.
I'm not really interested in prepositional concepts when speaking Klingon;
Klingon does not distinguish them as such. I take the verb, {jeS}
"participate," and I say where the participation takes place {lopno'Daq} "at
the party." If the participation does not take place in a physical
location, you might specify *for whose benefit* the participation takes
place. For instance, {QIn ghomvamvaD jIjeS} "I participate; the beneficiary
is this message group."
In English, "participate" always includes a prepositional concept. I see no
reason to assume that the Klingon form of this idea, {jeS} must also.
Indeed, its very lack of a prepositional marker in its definition is
evidence that it *doesn't* have such a meaning; there are lots of words with
those markers explicitly built into the definition, so why would you assume
that one which *doesn't* contain one get it anyway?
>In my humble opinion, awaiting full clarification from Marc Okrand, there
are
>may other Klingon verbs (including {qIm}) which include the inseparable
>[English] prepositional concept when the verb takes an object.
The *English* word is almost (but not quite) always associated with a
prepositional concept. This says absolutely nothing about the Klingon word
{jeS}.
>2. {choja'pu'bogh} is descried by SuStel as having no head. Am I wrong in
>claiming that the verb pronomial prefix IS the head?
Yes. The head noun of a relative clause is exactly that: a noun. A
pronomial prefix is not a noun. You're trying to say, "the thing which you
told me."
First, let's specify and use better vocabulary. We'll talk about the
"advice" {qeS} which you "told" {jatlh} me.
Normally, "You told me advice" would be {jIHvaD qeS Dajatlh}. If you wish,
you may "shorten" this to {qeS chojatlh}.
*Assuming* that you can put a Type 5'd noun on a relative clause (a question
which plagued the list a couple of months ago, you'll remember), you could
say, {jIHvaD qeS Dajatlhbogh} "The advice which you told me." This could
also be shortened to {qeS chojatlhbogh}.
Note that if we cannot actually put a Type 5'd noun on a relative clause,
you have to find an entirely different way to say this.
Also note that it *may* be possible to use pronouns which are acting as
nouns as the head noun.
>5. <<Finally, I have no idea what the sentence is trying to say! {DaH
rIntaH
> lopno'. chIjchoHmo' Hoch vogh wIleghlaHbe'bogh ghoS.} "Now the party was
> over. Because everyone began to navigate, they headed for someplace which
> we couldn't see." Do you mean they drove off into the darkness, or
> something? You are being too vague for me to understand this.>>
>
>Well, that's what the original English said: "...headed for someplace
which
>we could not see."
Ah, then the original was too vague.
>6. >yavDujwIj vIvongtaHvIS juHDaq jIcheghchu' 'e' vISov
> {vong} should have been typed as {yong}
Yes, now I get it.
>7. >lopno' Daqvo' mImejchoH 'ach HeDaq vIchIjchoHDI'......
>
> I presume that was a typo for {jImejchoH} or {mamejchoH}. Which one?
>
> Also, you need {jIchIjchoHDI'}.
>That was a type: s/b jImejchoH
>
>However, I like vIchIjchoHDI'..... with the object no stated but implied!
Why do you like that? The object is not at all apparent. I can work out
that you mean you were "navigating" your car, but the last time you
mentioned a {yavDuj} "groundship" was a couple of sentences ago. Since
then, you've talked about the party and the route. You've lost the focus on
that object, and you'd need to explicitly state it again if you like having
an object there.
>8. {paw'} See KGT pp157-158: The word literally means "collide" and is
>usually (though hardly exclusively) heard when referring to vehicles.
><<<>>>takes a plural subject. <<<>>> To refer to a something in motion
>colliding with something stationary, a different verb, {ngeQ} ("bump into,
>collide with") is used.
>
>In conclusion, I should have written {pe'vIl paw' DujwIj DujDaj je}
That also works, though I now start to wonder if the existence of the word
{ngeQ} might suggest that {paw'} with a plural subject might mean that each
of the subjects collides, but not necessarily with each other.
>9. >He DungDaq jIQottaHvIS jatlh yaS 'e' vIQoy
>If I do not use {Dung}, how will I distinguish that the girl was not lying
>beside {retlh} the road? True, she is not suspended in the space above the
>road. But, neither is a book which is on a chair as opposed to under it,
>beside it, inside it, etc. I would have said quS DungDaq paqwIj tu'lu',
too!
If she were lying beside the road, you'd say it: {He retlhDaq QottaH}. If
she's lying *on* the road, you say it: {HeDaq QottaH}. There is no
ambiguity here.
Similarly, if the book is *on* the chair, you simply say {quSDaq paqwIj
tu'lu'}. If the book us *under* the chair, it's {quS bIngDaq paqwIj
tu'lu'}. If the book is beside the chair, it's {quS retlhDaq paqwIj
tu'lu'}. If the book is inside the chair, it is {quS qoDDaq paqwIj tu'lu'}.
No mysteries here.
>>Hoch loghwIjDaq 'Iw tu'lu' 'IwwIj 'oH HochHom'e'
>Is this better: Hoch loghmeywIjDaq 'Iw tu'lu' 'IwwIj 'oH 'Iw 'op'e'
"There is blood in all of my spaces. Some of the blood is my blood."
I think you're trying to say "There is blood all over me. Some of the blood
is my blood."
The second second is good. The first would be better as {porghwIj HochDaq
'Iw tu'lu'} "There is blood on all of my body." This use of {Hoch} agrees
with what we've seen so far.
>10. >jatlh Qel tugh jIHegh
>
> I presume you mean something like {jatlh Qel tugh bIHegh} "The doctor
says,
> 'You will die soon.'" And the Lord said, "Let there be punctuation!"
>
>There is a problem here. In English *The doctor said that I will die
soon.*
>But, your rendition into Klingon makes more sense. It is not the doctor
who
>is dying. It is the girl.
In Klingon, {jatlh} is a verb of saying, and verbs of saying always use
direct quotes. This is no problem.
>12. I will discuss with you later some of the reading I have done
regarding
>{-meH}.
All right . . .
>I agree that SoSoy and vavoy are for Klingon children. Even though this
>Earthling girl is a teenager and could be feeling very much like a little
>child at the obvious end of her life, when translating into a target
language,
>I should have used the customs of the target language people.
Perhaps, but part of the problem was that I had no idea of the age or sex of
the character. Without such information, I usually substitute in someone
comparable to myself: male, mid-20's.
>In conclusion, I sincerely thank SuStel for his patience, review, and
>corrections. This is the way I learn, and it helps all the beginners who
are
>reading our posts, too.
qay'be'.
SuStel
Stardate 98307.2