tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 01 10:34:42 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC - Napolean quote
While I do prefer Lawrence's version, I think that we should acknowledge
that with the addition of the obligatory {-taH}, the original is valid. I
like putting subordinate clauses first as a matter of style. In all other
ways, the Klingon language tends to set up the environment for the action of
the main verb first, then it delivers the verb. The only real exception is
that some subordinate clauses can arbitrarily preceed or follow the main
verb. I usually don't like them to follow the verb, but I have to speak out
against my own preferences to point out that doing it the other way is okay,
too.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 7:50 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: KLBC - Napolean quote
>
>
> Melody Jeffcoat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >My roommate wanted this quote (which she attributed to Napolean)
> >translated into Klingon:
> >
> >Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.
> >
> >this is what I came up with:
> >
> >jaghlI' yIqaghQo' QaghvIS
To correct this:
jaghlI' yIqaghQo' QaghtaHvIS
The rest is less of a correction than a stylistic suggestion for what many
of us would consider to be an improvement.
> To me, this reads a bit differently than the intented translation.
> You've split the object from its subordinate clause, which makes me want
> to read it more as "Don't interupt your enemy, he's making a mistake" or
> something like that.
Your interpretation ignores the suffixes {-taHvIS}. You've basically
stumbled into an interesting area of Klingon grammar and you are preferring
a happy accidental ambiguity over what is more accurately going on in the
sentence as stated. I'll explain.
> Also, -vIS is an annoying suffix which requires
> -taH to preceed it (unless the grammarians have come up with an
> exception that I don't know about). Finally, while the use of -Qo' is
> always nice to see, the quotation isn't just saying what not to do, it's
> stipulating that you *never* do it.
I agree that {not} is an improvement, though again, I think {-Qo'} is
another valid interpretation.
> Personally, I'd be more inclined to render it as:
>
> QaghtaHvIS jaghlI' not yIqagh
Hmmm. If you had left the second verb as {yIqaghQo'}, then you would have
made the point I was going for. Then, {jaghlI'} could be interpreted either
as subject of {QaghtaHvIS} or object of {yIqaghQo'}. The happy accident is
that it is both. If we spell things out, the original becomes:
jaghlI' yIqaghQo' QaghtaHvIS jaghlI'.
We know it is okay to repeat nouns like this. TKD tells us this kind of
repetition is not considered bad style in Klingon.
Your version with {-Qo'} instead of {not} is:
QaghtaHvIS jaghlI' jaghlI' yIqaghQo'.
You can get rid of one of the nouns and use an implicit pronoun and it
doesn't matter which of the nouns you get rid of. They are both the same
person, and grammatically, you can't tell which one you omitted.
But you changed {-Qo'} to {not}, making it clear which one you omitted,
because spelled out, it would be:
QaghtaHvIS jaghlI' not jaghlI' yIqagh.
You omitted the second {jaghlI'}. Now, it can only mean, "While your enemy
is making a mistake, don't interrupt him."
Since it is no longer ambiguous, you've lost your original point of having
the object being split from its subordinate clause. We really are talking
about two different nouns here, which arbitrarily happen to be the same
person, so there is no joining or splitting. Your sentence is exactly as
meaningful as:
not jaghlI' yIqagh QaghtaHvIS.
While I think it is stylistically ugly, it would also be valid to say:
not yIqagh jaghlI' QaghtaHvIS.
In fact, I think that is the ugliest of all possible castings. I think it is
better to declare the noun first, then replace repeats of it with implicit
pronouns, rather than the other way around.
> Of course, now someone else will come along and correct *my* grammar. ;)
Well, there's nothing wrong to correct. Just a few comments. {{;)>
The main thing here is that Lawrence did exactly what I think is the best
style of translating this. It is very clean and presents the subordinate
clause providing the environment for the action first, {QaghtaHvIS jaghlI'},
and then the obligatory parts of the main clause that provide more context
for the action, {not}, and then the main verb, {yIqagh}. The main verb is
like a punch line to a joke the rest of the sentence sets up for you. That,
at its core, is the way Klingon sentences are built, and this translation
does just that.
Other translations are still valid because subordinate clauses clearly can
follow main clauses. This is one of the very few areas where word order is
optional in Klingon. Because there are so very few "helper words" (English
is full of them, which allows word order to be extremely optional), Klingon
depends so much on word order, and the only places in the grammar that I'm
aware of where word order is optional are:
1. Subordinate clauses (with an arguable exception of {-mo'} clauses) can
either preceed or follow the main clause.
2. Direct quotes can either preceed or follow the sentence built around the
verb of speech.
3. Since it is not explicitly obvious exactly what the word order has to be
among the Type 5 affixed "header" nouns, time stamps and adverbials, you can
get away with squishing these words around within the very limited scope of
the beginning of the sentence.
Everywhere else in the grammar, the word order is nailed down, solid. There
is only one correct order for anything else.
You might argue that by adding {-'e'} to the direct object, you can
optionally reverse the positions of the direct object and the adverb, but
I'd argue that you then have a different grammatical construction, since you
had to add {-'e'} to get away with it.
> Lawrence
charghwI' 'utlh