tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 11 10:27:03 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghorghvaD 'oH?
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: ghorghvaD 'oH?
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:26:58 GMT
> Hm, so much for having these thread off of their respective postings. Ahwell.
>
> At 11:49 2002-04-08 +0000, Agnieszka Solska wrote:
> >>K: ghorghvaD 'oH?
> >>Gloss: When is it for?
> >>Eno/Schmidt: When is it for?
> ><ghorgh> is not a noun and cannot take noun suffixes.
>
> Some things besides prototypical nouns can act like nouns. Consider
> {nuqDaq}. {nuq} isn't a prototypical noun, but it takes a noun suffix
> {Daq} just fine.
It is not established that {nuqDaq} is the question word {nuq} plus the noun
suffix {-Daq}. It is quite possible that {nuqDaq} is a word unto itself that
happens to sound like the question word {nuq} plus the noun suffix {-Daq}.
Meanwhile, even if this observation is completely wrong, the fact remains that
{nuq} is a question word that replaces a noun, while {chorgh} is a question
word that replaces a time stamp. Time stamps in Klingon are represented either
by adverbs or by nouns with no Type 5 noun suffix, with the possible exception
of {-'e'}, which is so exceptional as to cause one to wonder why it is even
included as Type 5 when we'd really like it to be a new noun Type 6, set apart
for itself.
Consider the answers to questions using these words.
nuqDaq maghomnIS?
qachDaq maghomnIS.
Some verbs have a special relationship with their direct objects implying
locative. These puzzle me a bit as to how best to ask the question. If I
say, "Where are we going?" is it true, as I suspect, that both of the following
are correct translations of the question?
nuqDaq wIghoS?
nuq wIghoS?
chorgh maghomnIS?
wa'leS maghomnIS.
Meanwhile, the text you are translating is cryptic:
> >>Eno/Schmidt: When is it for?
That brings me back to the reason I have largely not been responding to your
Eno/Schmidt messages. Translating someone else's text when you are not yet
fully competent at translating your own ideas suggests that you think Klingon
is a code rather than a language. You are translating words instead of ideas.
If you were translating ideas, it would be better if you were translating your
own ideas, since you'll understand them far better than you can possibly
understand the ideas of others.
When you ask, "How do you translate, 'When is it for?'" you are missing the
point. I read "When is it for?" and lacking more context, I'm clueless about
what it means. If I don't understand it in English, how am I supposed to
translate it into Klingon? Well, if I go word by word and treat Klingon as if
it were an algorithm for encoding English, I'd have an answer.
Since I see Klingon as a language designed to express ideas quite independent
of English grammar and vocabulary, I don't try to translate pithy, cryptic text
someone else wrote.
If you want to describe the full meaning of "When is it for?" and the context
in which it will be used, I'll be happy to comment on it. Dumping this
collection of words and punctuation on the list and then arguing that the
question word {ghorgh} should be able to take noun suffixes because {nuq}
apparently takes at least one noun suffix is probably not contributing anything
to the long-term compilation of meaningful revellations about the language.
Do you really think the answer to *ghorghvaD 'oH?* would be {wa'leSvaD 'oH}?
Is "tomorrow" the beneficiary of the "action" {'oH}? Is it the indirect object?
I doubt either of these is the case. What about *DaHvaD 'oH*? Do you suggest
that we can put a noun suffix on the adverb {DaH}? Likely, that would be
interpreted as "It is for the array," since the only noun form of {DaH}
means "array" and not "now".
Can something really be "for" a "when"? Please explain what you mean here.
> --
> Sean M. Burke http://www.spinn.net/~sburke/
Will