tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 09 17:44:59 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: equally beautiful

SuStel wrote:

> I get the feeling peHruS is disguising this as KLBC to try to 
> "catch" Qov. 

SuStel probably feels this way because peHruS posed the same question 
six months ago, (/cgi-bin/mfs/1997/Aug97/0810.html) 
and seems now to be testing his theory against a new BG, to see if he 
gets better results.  The rules haven't changed since then, peHruS.  
If you are trying to get some Klingon grammatical tool of yours 
acknowledged by the community the way we nod to Krankor for the 
disambiguating {-'e'} on relative clauses or mention charghwI''s name 
when we translate questions in "which?" with {yIngu'} or {yIwIv}, 
then start by learning and remembering the uncontroversial grammar 
and establishing, as those people have done, a reputation for using 
it. 

peHruS has a talent for seeming confrontational and arrogant in his 
listmail, and inciting others, me definitely included, into 
answering in the same vein.  I have spoken with peHruS in person and 
found him to be sincere and respectful of others.  When I am thinking 
clearly, I realize that what appear to be petty nitpicks and traps 
are simply an eccentric writing style coupled with the workings of a 
mind that needs to digest the whole animal before it makes use of it. 
Unfortunately none of us will ever see the whole animal.

peHruS, I get the idea that you are attempting to learn and 
define for yourself everything about the language, rather than
everything there is to know about it, or simply everything you need 
to know in order to communicate.  As Klingon does not have real 
native speakers or a real history, there will ALWAYS be corners 
where it is possible that we are missing a construction, a word or a 
piece of grammar.  Most of us focus little or no energy on 
speculating on what might fill these corners, because that's Okrand's 
job.  You will continue to make people annoyed if you try to fill 
missing corners of the language with your own inventions, and for 
some reason I can't quite pin down the wording you use to point out 
other people's typos and prefix slips raises hackles.  I recently 
snapped at you quite hard, and I should not have done that.  As a 
human to human, I apologize.

> I feel truly compelled to answer this, because I think 
> peHruS is treading on very thin ice here. Please forgive me if I 
> have overstepped the boundaries of protocol. (Perhaps by the time I 
> upload this to my e-mail account, Qov will already have responded . 
> . .)

When a long term list member writes a KLBC I really see no harm in it 
being answered by the first available BG(s).  I see it as a request 
that the ideas presented be considered in the same strict way as I 
consider other KLBCs, granting no poetic licence and overlooking no 
typos.  There is little risk of someone like peHruS who knows who we 
all are being confused by conflicting answers.  And SuStel's answer 
is excellent, saving me the trouble of writing a similar one. 

-----Original Message-----From: [email protected] 
<[email protected]> To: Multiple recipients of list 
<[email protected]> Date: Monday, February 09, 1998 3:00 AM
Subject: KLBC: equally beautiful

>I have been struggling some with the following concept:
>
>Your pot is as big as a water keg.
>'unlIj tIn law' bIQ qegh tIn puS is okay for "bigger than".
>I want to express that they are the same size, or at least
>approximately the same size.

wa' tlho'ren muq 'unlIj. wa' tlho'ren muq bIQ bal. (A {qegh} is used
to store liquor, not water.) or wa' tlho'ren muq bIQ bal; rur 'unlIj.

(A {tho'ren}, Okrand tells us, is around a liter or so.)

Oh, you don't actually want to specify exactly how big they are? (A
Klingon may be inaccurate, but . . .) Hey, I can deal with that.

tIn bIQ bal; rur 'unlIj.
or
mach bIQ bal; rur 'unlIj.


What, you don't actually have any idea how big they are, but they hold
the same amount? Shucks, no problem!


bIQ balvo' 'unlIjDaq bIQ qanglu'chugh teblu'chu'.




Anything else?


>If this were allowed: 'unlIj tIn law' bIQ qegh tIn rap/nIb, I'd use
>it.
But,
>MO has never used such a construction, right?


Absolutely right. He has never used anything like it. Let's just sweep
that under the rug, shall we?


>I await your way of expressing "just as --------- as".


Alas, there is no such beastie. You've got to construct a new sentence
each and every time. The universe can be a hard place.
-------end of quoted text

I'd add to SuStel's advice the possibility of saying things like:

{tIn bIH 'e' vIqelDI' rap 'unlIj qegh je} 
"Your pot is as big as a keg."
lit. When I consider them being big, your pot and a keg are the same.

{nom maqettaHvIS marap Qa' jIH je}
"I can run as fast as a Qa'."
lit. When we run fast, I and a Qa' are the same.

{HoSchaj juvlu'DI' rap Wesley Worf je}
"Wesley is as strong as Worf."
lit. When their strength is measured, Worf and Wesley are the same.
(note that this works only because {HoS} happens to be a noun)

I don't want anyone to feel that SuStel and I can make up ways 
to say things and be right but that non BGs who do the same thing 
get called wrong.  The difference is this: we are using established, 
accepted grammar that conveys the target meaning.  Constructions 
that are shouted down are either arbitrary and illogical meanings 
ascribed to existing grammar, or grammatical structures that are not 
sanctioned anywhere in canon with a meaning arbitrarily defined by 
their authors.  Only Marc Okrand can do that.

- Qov

Back to archive top level