tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 05 09:27:57 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: A tangled knot of subordinate clauses

McArdle ([email protected]) 

Agnieszka Solska <[email protected]> wrote:
   
  >mu'tlhegh qel mIq'ey:
   
  Great.  Now you're going to make me work ;)  So far I've been treating Klingon as a write-only language.
   
  >: I know you believe you understand what you think I said,
>: but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
>
>mu'tlheghvam mugh 'e' nID:
>
>: "vIjatlhlaw'pu'bogh Dayaj 'e' DaHar 'e' vISov
>: 'ach Doch vIHechpu'bogh 'oHbe' Doch'e' DaQoypu'bogh
>: 'e' Datlhojbejbe'.
   
  Note: I corrected this to lead with {Doch}, which of course is suboptimal given the discussion below.
   
  >SIv. ja':
>
> [clip]
>
  >:Are there better ways of saying "what" (= "that which")
>:than {Doch} plus a verb with {-bogh}?
>
>I doubt the Klingon word {Doch} should be used here. Unlike the English word 
>"thing", it probably only refers to material objects. I believe one of the 
>options we have is to use the indefinite pronoun {vay'}:
>
>vay' vIjatlhpu'bogh Dayaj
>You understand what I said.
>
>This use of {vay'} to mean "that which" is supported by TKW p. 149:
>
>vay' DaneHbogh yIchargh.
>Conquer what you desire.
>
   
  I wasn't very happy myself with {Doch ... -bogh}, but didn't have an alternative I liked better.  Ironically, I considered but rejected {vay'} because of its apparent indefiniteness.  "What you think I said" is not "something [or anything] you think I said" but "the [specific] thing you think I said".  If the TKW translation is correct, though (i.e., the Klingon doesn't really mean "conquer _something/anything_ you desire"), then {vay'} looks like the way to go.
   
  >Alternatively we can try and figure out what the English noun "thing" refers 
>to and provide that referent in Klingon. Now, the "things" we say are words, 
>sentences, which in turn express ideas. This would give us
>
>mu'mey vIjatlhpu'bogh Dayaj
>You understand the words I said.
>
>qechmey'e' 'oSbogh mu'meywIj Dayaj
>You understand the ideas represented by my words.
   
  I think in this case it's not that the actual words are in question but rather the underlying ideas, so I'd prefer the latter except that it's awfully wordy.  OTOH I've lost some wordiness through being unable to directly express the "you think" in "what you think I said", so this may be a wash.
   
  >:Is there a word for "statement" or "message"
>
>There is {QIn} meaning "message".
> [clip]
   
  Perfect, but where is it from?  I don't find it in TKD or in the supplemental list at kli.org.  I have KGT on order; is it in there?  (At kli.org {QIn} is defined as "spear head, sharpened end of pencil"; a homonym?)
   
  Do you suppose one can {jatlh} a {QIn}, or is some other verb better?
   
  >:I'm also not sure of the usage of some of the verbs,
>:particularly {Hech}. TKD gives this as "intend, mean to,"
>:which I don't find particularly clear. Can it be used with
>:a nominal object, or is it construed only with verbs?
>:How does the latter work syntactically?
>
>{HIv tlhInganpu'} bIjatlhpu' 'e' DaHech
>'ach {QIv tlhInganpu'} bIjatlh.
>
>You intended to say: "Klingons attack" but
>you said: "Klingons are inferior".
   
  I now think my question in the previous post was misconceived.  If {Hech} appears with the standard sentence-as-object construction, then in theory there shouldn't be any reason it can't have a nominal object instead.  That is, a sentence such as {mu'qaD vIHechpu'} should be possible if {qatIchpu' 'e' vIHech} is.
   
  If not, I'm in a pretty pickle because "what I meant" must become something like "what I intended to say" or "what I intended to communicate", which brings me right back to the unsolved problem of translating phrases like "what you think I said", but this time with no handy suffix hack ({-law'} in {vIjatlhlaw'pu'bogh}) to fall back on.
   
  >:Sov luneH tlhobbogh yabDu'
>:(if brain = body part, or perhaps {yabpu'}
>:if mind = person by synecdoche)
>
>In Klingon plural suffixes are optional. The prefix lu- already indicates a 
>plural subject, so why not just say:
>
>Sov luneH tlhobbogh yab.
   
  In practice, this is fine, but there's that whole "inquiring mind" thing.  If you _had_ to pluralize {yab} in this sense (say, in a sentence like {tlhobbogh yab?u'vaD jIghItlh}), how would you do it?
   
  This is reminiscent of an exercise in the Postal Course referring to the "hands" of a clock.  Does this require the body-part plural suffix?  Or, since the usage is metaphorical, is the general non-sentient plural used instead?
   
  >Now, {tlhob} also means "request, plead".
>To avoid the ambiguity you could use {ghel} "ask a question".
>
>Sov luneH ghelbogh yab.
   
  Neither TKD nor kli.org gives "request, plead" for {tlhob} or has {ghel} at all.  KGT again?  Can the _complete_ list be found anywhere?  When online, I've been referring to the Klingon lexicon at http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/ikavnemesis/klngnlex2.txt, but it's missing these too.
   
  >'ISqu'
   
  qatlho' 'ej qavan
   
  mIq'ey
 
---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business.

Back to archive top level