tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 26 19:59:11 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: a little bit pregnant?
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: a little bit pregnant?
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:49:12 +1000
- Bcc:
jIghItlhpu':
>I don't want to know the ways I'm *not* able to say "liquid", and I do want
>to know the ways I am able to say it. I'm certainly able to say {Subbe';
>bIQ rur}, but if I don't communicate what I want to communicate, I'm still
>not able to translate "liquid".
jangpu' De'vID:
>What's bothering me about the use of <-laH> here is that when
>someone asks, "*How can* I say X?", what they really mean is
>"*How do* I say X?" or "*What do* I say when I want to say X?"
>It seems to be the wrong type of question (when taken literally),
>but is understood in English because "How can" is an idiom.
I understand this, but I still don't see how "How can" is so idiomatic. "I
am unable to say "liquid" within the confines of the grammar; how *am* I
able to say "liquid?". I was asking for suggestions, not a formula. *do*
carries connotations of there being one set way; see the other idiom "not
the done thing".
>For example, "What are your orders?" is translated as <chay'
>jura'> "How do you command us?". An English "what" question in
>this case best maps onto a Klingon "how" question. When you
According to your argument, if one were to ask {chay' jura'}, the answer
would go something like {SaSIq; SavIHmoH; tlhIHvaD jIjach; Daq DaghoSnISbogh
SajaHmoH.} :)
>ask a question like <chay' jIjatlhlaH, X?>, I feel like the
>response of a Klingon would be either a blank stare or
><bItlhuHlaHmo', nujlIj DapoSmoHlaHmo'...>. In other words,
No, if I had said {chay' jIjatlhlaH} I would be likely to get that response.
If I said {chay' jIjatlhlaH X}, I don't see how there could be any
ambiguity. Sure, if the person I'm talking to is named X (like {chay'
jIjatlhlaH <Chang>}, they could misinterpret, but not generally otherwise.
BTW, I don't think {-mo'} is right here; you're answering a "how" question,
not a "why" question. "How can I say X?" "Because you can breathe." Doesn't
sound right, in either English or Klingon.
>"How can" maps to "How do" in English, but I'm not sure that
>it does so in Klingon. When I see <chay' X-laH> I see this
>as "How do I have the ability to do X" (because you have been
>taught to do so, because you have the necessary equipment to
>do so, etc.), which isn't the question you wanted to ask.
Sounds like an argument over a small point of semantics to me... But if I do
not know how to say something, then I do *not* have the equipment necessary
to say it. I have the physical equipment, sure, but not the grammatical or
lexical knowledge required. This is just as much necessary equipment as
having an empty mouth, vibrating the vocal cords, etc.
>Maybe I'm just being too literal-minded.
And that's not a negative thing. It pays to ask questions; that's how we
learn. Hell, I'm still asking questions after five years. :D
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail