tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 03 00:22:29 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Delbogh mu' pojtaH

...Paul ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

I was going to work on a blow-by-blow rebuttal, but I'll let it go with just
this one:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> Where is the value in someone offering his comments or suggestions, if
> you're just going to try to invalidate them?

Yeah, I wonder why I ever try to be insightful here when I know you're
just going to try to invalidate them...  Honestly, I think every post I
make where I try to posit an idea is immediately followed by you trying
to express your authority over how I should think about Klingon, usually
coupled with a statement about "nobody except Okrand is the authority".
The hypocrisy endemic to your responses is really irksome.

Okay, steam's blown off.

> vuQbogh Hol
> muvuQbogh Hol
> ---and---
> "language which fascinates"
> "language which fascinates me"
>
> exhibit exactly the same relationship between their parts.  I can express
> exactly the same concept in English, with exactly the same precision.

Which completely ignores the original point, the translation of an English
participle.  Translating Klingon grammar to English is a piece of cake --
there aren't that many forms that exist.  The reverse is not so
straightforward, which was the point, unless you follow your assumption
that in English, the participle form always implies an indefinite object.
This may be a valid key point, but you still have not shown that.

What's the quote, "You can never prove something to be entirely true, but
you can always prove something false"?  My theory is that the English
participle form does not always imply an indefinite object.  Your theory
is that it can.  Which of us will prove the other wrong first?

Just need to give me some time to come up with a good example, is all.  ;)

> > 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.
>
> With this conclusion I certainly agree, though I don't agree with how you
> got there.

Wait...  You agree?  I thought you said you didn't agree with my conclusion?
:)

So, after thought and refinement, my theory is this:

"The participle form in English can be translated into Klingon using relative
clauses, but care must be taken to ensure that any object implied by
transitive verbs used in the participle form are accurately reflected in the
verb prefix of the relative clause in Klingon."

The "Trimboli Corrolary" is that any object implied by the English participle
form is an indefinite object, and thus the "zero" prefix is always acceptable
on the Klingon relative clause verb.

Would you agree that that is a succinct representation of what I was trying
to say and what you were responding with?

...Paul

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
    "We must become the change we want to see" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Back to archive top level