tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 02 21:04:03 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: ja'/jatlh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 6:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: ja'/jatlh
>
>
> jatlh voragh:
> > : puq ja' yaS choqIp'a'?
> > : This would be incorrect.
> >
> > No, this *is* correct: "The officer tells the child, 'Will you hit me?'"
I have to agree. Okrand has told us that either {ja'} or {jatlh} can be used
as the verb of speech in direct quotation, and he has explained that the
main difference between these two verbs is that {ja'} has the person(s)
being addressed as its direct object while {jatlh} has as its direct object
a noun referring to some unit of speech. Either one can be used with a
question and neither one uses the direct quotation itself as direct object.
The verb {ja'} or {jatlh} are grammatically independent of the direct
quotation and can either preceed or follow the quotation with no grammatical
change to either the speech statement or the direct quotation.
I respect SuStel's interest in exploring the individual meaning of {ja'} and
{jatlh}, though I honestly believe the conclusion he reaches misses the core
difference between these two verbs. The primary difference is that the
direct object of {ja'} is the person or persons being spoken to, while the
direct object of {jatlh} is {Hol} or {SoQ} or some similar noun for words
being spoken.
> > From the TKD example {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'} we learn that {ja'}
> can also be
> used
> > in giving direct quotations, though {jatlh} may well be more common or
> > preferred stylistically.
> >
> > : puqvaD jatlh yaS choqIp'a'?
> > : This would be correct.
Yes. The person being addressed can be the direct object of {ja'} or the
indirect object of {jatlh}, as is the case here.
> > "The officer says to the child, "Will you hit me?"
The editor in me wants to comment on your use of quotation marks here.
Three?
> > : However,
> > :
> > : HoDvaD jatlh DeghwI' nujunta'.
> >
> > "The helmsman says to the captain, 'It has evaded us'."
Ahhh. Much better.
> > : HoD ja' DeghwI' nujunta'.
> > : Both of these would be correct.
> >
> > "The helmsman tells the captain, 'It has evaded us'."
> >
> > How is this different from your "incorrect" {puq ja' yaS choqIp'a'}? Or
> have I
> > misunderstood you? (I admit not to have followed the previous thread
> closely.)
>
> Yes, I think you have. I am not saying they are grammatically
> incorrect. I
> am describing what I think the difference IN MEANING (not grammar) is
> between /ja'/ and /jatlh/. You'll notice that none of Okrand's /ja'/
> sentences quote questions, but /jatlh/ sentences do.
The closest canon reference I can find is in HolQeD v7n4p7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WM: Just to mention particular verbs in terms of whether they can be used
for speech or not, you are saying that {ghel} is a word that would probably
not be used typically as a verb of speech. That even if you are asking a
question you would still tend to use {ja'} or {jatlh}.
MO: Yes.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It's not much. Maybe he was just careless and let me suggest that {ja'} and
{jatlh} could either one be used while asking a question, and if he had
thought about it more, he would have favored {jatlh} as you suggest, but
there really isn't anything in the interview that suggests this. He favored
using {jatlh} in general in the examples, but I think that was mostly
because he was not mentioning the person being spoken to, which is the thing
that makes {ja'} preferable over {jatlh}.
> Even our English
> translations are "tell, report" and "speak, say," repectively. These are
> not identical words, so why do different Klingon words get
> different English
> translations?
"tell" is something you do to a person. I've often been bothered by why he
didn't say "report TO" instead of just "report", but maybe this is the
translation for that sense of speaking to someone when you don't mention the
person, much like the intransitive use of {Sop} when you don't mention what
is being eaten.
You "speak" words and "say" words. You "speak" a language. You "say" a
speech.
I think Okrand was giving us glosses for general verbs of speech with the
difference being what kind of noun serves as direct object for these two
verbs.
> I think Okrand wasn't just thinking about the
> English grammar
> for his definitions, he was thinking about the difference in meaning.
I think that the difference in meaning primarily focuses on what is
appropriate as direct object to the verb.
> I see by looking up the word "tell" that it largely involves the recipient
> of the information or command having actually understood, or at least
> received, whatever is "told." On the other hand, "say" and "speak" have
> more general meanings: they indicate the expression of something verbally,
> but have little connotation of a receiver of that information.
I agree with you more about {ja'} than {jatlh}. I think that {ja'}
definitely means what you say and {jatlh} definitely does not mean what you
say {jatlh} means. Meanwhile, I think {jatlh} means something you don't
mention, and I think that both {ja'} and {jatlh} mean what you think {jatlh}
means.
{Hol} is an appropriate direct object for {jatlh}. It is not an appropriate
direct object for {ja'}. {loD} is an appropriate direct object for {ja'}. It
is not an appropriate direct object for {jatlh}. If there is no direct
object, either {ja'} or {jatlh} can be used. There fails to be a difference
in meaning when there is no direct object. They become synonyms,
interchangeable.
> Furthermore,
> "report" is very specific compared to all of these.
I agree that it is an odd gloss.
> I think that /ja'/ has a narrower meaning than /jatlh/. I wince
> when I see
> large blocks of text, preceded by /ja' vay/ (and let's ignore,
> for now, the
> fact that none of us is actually vocalizing to each other). They're not
> reporting.
I empathize with your wincing. I certainly wince often enough, often at
things that you would not wince at. In this case, you are wincing at
something I wouldn't wince at. Still, I feel your pain and I respect your
search for precise meanging for these different verbs, even as I disagree
with your conclusions.
For me, I think that finding the appropriate group of nouns that can act as
direct object to a verb is a big part of understanding that verb's meaning
and its proper usage. It is the first thing I look for as I try to
understand the subtleties of meaning in a word.
> Frequently, they're asking questions, or reciting poetry, or
> some other thing. They're not "telling" us, and they're not "reporting."
Well, if there is no direct object, perhaps they are reporting.
> They ARE "speaking" and "saying." I don't find it a coincidence that this
> split can be made with Klingon verbs. Just like people had
> problems where I
> used /legh/ for "look," I have a problem when I see /ja'/ for "say." It
> isn't.
Hmmm. The thing is, the whole reason I had a problem with saying that "look"
is an English translation for {legh} is because {legh} means "see" and that
verb has a direct object being the thing seen, while "look" does not take
any direct object at all. It can't. So, it doesn't take the same direct
object as "see", so it can't be the translation of {legh} because {legh}
uses the same kind of direct object as "see" does. "Look" doesn't match up.
There are times when there is no stated direct object that the words "look"
and "see" are identical. "Look there! See there!" {pa' yIlegh!} Meanwhile,
if there is something being looked at, it needs to be the direct object of
{legh} because {legh} means "see" and not "look" and "see" can take a direct
object. Turning the direct object of {legh} into a locative or indirect
object because that's how we'd say it in English with "look" only proves
that you are using the wrong verb.
Okay, here's an analog:
I used to argue that {-lu'} was the same thing as the passive voice. People
got really worked up and in particular, they pointed out that the passive
voice can have a specific subject, as in "The secret was told to me by the
officer," while {-lu'} can never indicate who did the action. {pegh
vIjatlhlu'.} There is no available grammatical slot into which the identity
of the person who told me the secret can be added to this sentence.
"Look" can be used for {legh} whenever there is no direct object much like
{-lu'} is the same thing as the passive voice, so long as the identity of
the subject is not given. Meanwhile, either {ja'} or {jatlh} can be used
when there is no direct object. If there is a direct object, then you choose
{ja'} or {jatlh} depending on what type of noun appears as direct object.
Person being addressed? {ja'}. Language or noun representing speech?
{jatlh}.
> When I said /puq ja' yaS chopIp'a'/ WOULD be incorrect (that "would" is
> there to indicate that this is a speculative/personalized thing,
> not a rule
> I think must be followed blindly), I didn't mean that grammatically. I
> meant it in regard to the meaning of the verb.
While I admire your intent to treat each verb as unique, much as I do, I
honestly think you've missed the heart of the difference between these
verbs. The quickest way to spot a non-native English speaker is when they
pair the wrong type of direct object and the verb or use a preposition
marking a direct object as indirect. I suspect the same is true for Klingon.
> At /qep'a'
> wejDIch/, people
> had a problem with /retlhutlh/ for Scrabble, saying it didn't
> mean anything.
> However, it's perfectly grammatical. And of course in this case you can
> come up with an odd situation where /retlhutlh/ might make sense. It's
> meaning I'm dealing with here, not grammar.
I hope this helps clarify the difference in our understanding of these
verbs.
> SuStel
> Stardate 495.4
charghwI'