tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 01 15:10:27 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Delbogh mu' pojtaH

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

> On 1 Sep 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> > This is the Klingon Word Of The Day for Monday, September 1, 2003.
> > Klingon word:   vuQ
> > Part of Speech: verb
> > Definition:     fascinate
>
> Here's an interesting English word that appears as a verb ("Language
> fascinates me") almost as much as it appears as an adjective ("The
> fascinating world of language").  In tlhIngan Hol, though, we realy only
> ever have verbs, though some, it would seem, may be used in a special
> construction that mimicks the English form of an adjective.
>
> In English, the base word is the verb 'fascinate'.  By adding the
> appropriate -ing suffix, we get a form that is an adjective.  Is there a
> similar pattern in tlhIngan Hol?  A quick run through all the suffixes
> available to verbs quickly brings up no easy analog to the English suffix
> pattern.  Indeed, I wouldn't expect there to be one, since tlhIngan Hol
> already distinguishes itself from English by doing away with the adjective
> form in the first place.
>
> But we do, in Klingon, have both a grammatical rule for an adjectival
> construct, Section 4.4.  However, this limits our verb use to only those
> verbs which are "expressing a state or quality," which is generally
> sufficient for our lexicon, which tends to translate such verbs as "be
> <something>" -- a decent marker for our purposes.
>
> We also have rules for changing verbs into nouns.  The verb suffix -wI' is
> effectively the equivalent to the English suffixes "-or" and "-er".  The
> suffix -ghach was also introduced and gives us another parallel in the
> verb-to-noun transformation, equivalent to the English "-ation" and
> "-ment" (and probably a few others).
>
> So is there a common way to be able to use verbs that are not otherwise
> candidates for adjectival use (most often, transitives) in adjectival
> ways?  The -bogh suffix is a tempting, simple option, as it is designed to
> modify nouns.  If I wanted to say, "I'm studying the fascinating new
> language", would /vuQbogh Hol chu' vIHaD/ be correct?  Is it sufficient?
>
> /vuQbogh/ "which fascinates none/he/she/it/them" might be sufficient.
> Perhaps, though, it is not sufficient to say that this is a good pattern.
> If you as the listener had no interest in the language, the presumption
> that the /Hol chu'/ might /vuQ/ you may be against the Klingon code.

I accept the sentence above.  According to TKD pp. 33-34, the 0-object
prefixes may be used to indicate "when an object is possible, but unknown or
vague."  /vuQbogh Hol chu'/ "fascinating new language" does not say that
everyone must find the language fascinating, nor that the listener must find
the language fascinating, just that unknown or vague parties find it
interesting.

I also think it's useless to try to argue language usage based on what might
or might not "be against the Klingon code."  How do you determine that?  How
can someone disagree?  You could say that anything at all might be against
the Klingon code, and it's no more valid than what I think is against the
Klingon code.  What if I think that a Klingon would say /vuQbogh Hol/
"fascinating language (and I dare you to contradict me!)"?

The only thing I can think of in the language that supports anything
remotely like this notion is the fact that many of the food and music terms
describe food and music in relation to how they affect the person eating or
listening, rather than the food or music itself.  Food is not /na'/ "salty,"
/na'/ is something that the eater experiences.  Music is not /Dun/, but it
might /DuQ/ someone.

> Perhaps in tlhIngan Hol, one must be wary of such assumptions.

The pattern you're describing is a participle.  "An adjective form derived
from verbs, which ascribes to a noun participation in the action or state of
the verb, without specifying person or number of the subject."  In English,
this definition says it is equally valid for use with actions or states.

But, as must always be pointed out, we're not talking about English!

>  There are
> several verb suffixes that could be used to admit to such assumptions.
> The suffixes I'm thinking of are -laH and -law':
>
> /vuQlaHbogh Hol chu' vIHaD/ "I'm studying the new language that could
> fascinate."
> /vuQlaw'bogh Hol chu' vIHaD/ "I'm studying the new language that
> apparently fascinates."
>
> Perhaps more importantly, paying attention to prefixes on the relative
> clause is the way to speak more accurately:
>
> /muvuQbogh Hol chu' vIHaD/ "I'm studying the new language that fascinates
> me."
>
> So for /vuQ/, I think we have a winner.  By limiting the assumption made
> when indicating that something is fascinating or can fascinate, we develop
> a construct that allows us to use the verb in something of an adjectival
> form, but with actually more explicit context than the English form.
>
> But can this be made into a pattern?

Here's the big question: why SHOULD it be made into a pattern?  The
"official" way of saying something?  The "accepted" way?  Why not just make
sentences that express what you want to express?  Make sure it's appropriate
to the situation.

>  We would need to examine some other
> verbs.  A random flip through the TKD and my finger lands on /jolvoy'/ --
> not a verb, but the next one down is /jon/ "capture".  How might this verb
> be used in an adjectival form in English?  Perhaps we might want to say
> "The capturing crew can keep the ship"
>
> /Duj pollaH lujonta'bogh beqpu'/
>
> I think we have a winner -- and simultaneously, a loser.  I think we have
> a winner in that I believe -bogh can probably be used in almost all cases
> where we want to translate "the <verb>ing foo".  But at the same time, the
> pattern is not consistent.  Based on how the form is used, the verb prefix
> may have to change, additional verb suffixes may have to be added.  The
> English accomplishes most of this through context, but the Klingon must be
> a little more specific.  Perhaps one of the few places in the language
> where English actually takes more from context than Klingon.
>
> Comments?  Suggestions?  Things I missed?

I think you've made too many unsupported assumptions: that Klingon must be
more specific than English, that there should be a Klingon construction that
mimics English participles, even that you can point to "the Klingon code" to
shape your understanding of the language.  I see no reason why you can't
just use the tools of Klingon to say what you mean-irrespective of how it's
said in English.  That's the real test of what works in Klingon: if you can
say it without any reference to English grammar or English translations,
using only what's appeared in TKD and canon, then it's good Klingon.  At
that point we reach the "we don't know how Klingons actually do it" wall.
At that wall, one should be allowed to use one's own interpretation.  We
don't know if there's any taboo on saying /vuQbogh Hol/ "fascinating
language," but it fits perfectly with all known rules and observed usages,
so it should be allowed to stand.  Who's going to tell me I can't say
/vuQbogh Hol/?

I can see no semantic difference between English "language which fascinates"
and "fascinating language."  And since we KNOW that /vuQbogh Hol/ means
"language which fascinates," it follows that it can be said to mean
"fascinating langauge."  This is an issue of translation, not of what
Klingon can do.

SuStel
Stardate 3668.2

Back to archive top level