tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 02 15:37:36 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Delbogh mu' pojtaH
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> > /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 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!)"?
Aye, but that's why I said "may be" :) I wasn't trying to argue for the
usage based solely on that kind of thing. I was exploring the possibility
that it might be a factor.
> > 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.
Actually, I think my conclusion was that it couldn't be made into a
pattern, as I state in this paragraph a little later:
> > 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.
> 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
I have not assumed Klingon "must" be more specific than English. My
conclusion was that in this case, Klingon is a little more specific than
the English counterpart. Whether or not there "should be" a Klingon
construction that mimics participles was the whole purpose of the message
-- to see if there was one, not to prove that there must BE one.
And I think if you remove "the Klingon code" from the equation, you lose
perspective, and find yourself MORE inclined to try and draw direct
parallels between Klingon and English. If we removed the conceptual
background of the language from our discussions, why would the translation
of English idioms be discouraged? The argument for that is normally that
the English idiom wouldn't make sense "to a Klingon". Why then would you
want to ignore the Klingon perspective when discussing grammar?
> 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 am. :) Just kidding. But that's the whole point of a discussion,
isn't it? To explore these ideas, these interpretations, more
importantly, these assumptions.
> 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.
I disagree on two points -- your last sentence first, I see issues of
translation to be directly related to "what Klingon can do". The limits
of the Klingon language are tested by translation. It is when someone
attempts to translate a concept from one language, such as a participle,
to Klingon that we determine whether or not it is possible to express the
same concept in Klingon. There are numerous examples in which we have
already determined Klingon to be somewhat deficient -- at least to the
point where the grammatical structure needs to be recast to convey a
similar concept, but sometimes even that falls short in conveying the
exact idea. The English concept of tense tends to be one that cannot
always be exactly translated exactly, though there are various mechanisms
for conveying a "close enough" translation.
The second point I disagree with is the line just before that, or at least
the implication you make there. I agree that /vuQbogh Hol/ means "the
language which fascinates" and that it could be equivalent to "the
fascinating language". Indeed, that was really the entire point of my
message. What I disagree with is the fact that you so glibly make the
assumption that because the English can be recast so easily, that the
Klingon must automagically be acceptable in both cases.
As you stated, my post made several assumptions, but in return you have
made several of your own. You are making the assumption that the two
English forms are, in fact, equivalent, and you are making the assumption
that because A translates directly to B and B is effectively equal to C,
that A can translate directly to C. This may be a valid assumption in
this case, or even many other cases, but is not guaranteed, and needs to
be borne out through explanation and examination. There are several
places where this is NOT true, the most obvious ones to my mind have to do
with verb prefix use. Where English does not make some distinctions,
Klingon does, and if you use the A = B = C method of translation, you are
apt to miss the key differences.
The key difference I would make between the two English forms is exactly
the kind of difference that would show up in the Klingon translation. The
participle form in English takes no direct object, and cannot take one
when used as an adjective. In Klingon, because we do NOT have a real
participle form, we are forced into a relative clause form where objects
may be present, either explicitly named or implicitly identified through
verb prefix. This may break your A = B = C argument, because what has one
form in English may have two, more specific forms in Klingon:
DuvuQbogh Hol vIyajbe'
nuvuQbogh Hol vIyajbe'
vuQbogh Hol vIyajbe'
"I don't understand the fascinating language."
If translating from Klingon to English, the above may be considered
correct in all cases. Translating from English to Klingon, which form
would be correct? Are all three correct? Taken only from the limited
context, it is quite possible that all three could be "correct", but all
three have different implications (whereas the English may have a
connotation, the Klingon has more explicit implications).
What my original post actually attempted to show, and admittedly, my
meandering style probably did not punctuate, is that the English
participle form CAN be translated into Klingon by using the relative
clause form, but care may need to be taken to ensure that the implied
objects of the verb used in this form are properly identified.
Somehow, it seems you have managed to simultaneously agree and disagree
with me at the same time. I get the sense that you agree /vuQbogh Hol/
can effectively substitute for the participle "the fascinating language"
but disagree that the various, more specific forms are acceptable? Or is
that you just don't feel they're necessary? Or were you just pissed you
had to read more than 25 lines of text to find something you had already
known or concluded? :)
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'." -- Yoda
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}