tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 30 11:11:09 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: ngIp (verb)
While I have been trying to use mostly Klingon, I will switch to English
for a bit to avoid confusion.
> QaghDI' nuv latlh lughmoHtaHvIS nuvvam, qay'choH.
> 'ach chotIchnISbe' je. chaq yap SovwIj. chaq yapbe'. bIQaghmo' SovwIj
> DanoHlaHbe'law'.
I wasn't, in general, trying to correct you or insult you. You had
trouble understanding my message; part of that was due to my grammatical
errors. But you had trouble understanding even my well-formed sentences,
and judging by your retranslations, I assumed that the reason for that
was that you were unaware of the other meanings and other usages of the
words in question. Is that assumption what insulted you?
Perhaps the way I phrased it in Klingon was what insulted you. If that
is the case, I welcome suggestions for how to rephrase it.
>>>> tlhoy mu'mey'e' bIpup. 'ach bIpupqu'chugh:
>>> "As for words, you kick too much. But if you kick a lot:" ????
>> yapbe' SovlIj: pup = "be exact" (pup = "kick", pup = "be perfect" je)
>
> "As for words, you are too perfect/exact/high resolution."??? "But if
> you are very perfect/exact/high resolution:" ???
>
> DIvI' Hol mu' "picky" DaneHlaw'. Qu'vam toy'be' mu' <<pup>> . Qatlh
> mu'tlhegh DaneHbogh. qay' vIjatlhlaH? jIQubnIS...
Actually, I was going for <precise>. "You're being too precise." (in
reference to your objection to "borrow"). "But if you're going to be so
(lit. extremely) precise:" (And then I go on to say why "steal" is also
inappropriate from a precise perspective.)
> jIpupbe' 'e' vISov, vaj qayajHa'pu'.
I misunderstood you because you knew you were imprecise?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I don't think I misunderstood
you; that part of your message you wrote in English. You said that
"borrow" was the wrong word, that it should be "steal" or "plunder"; I
then responded in the same vein. If "borrow" is the wrong word because
one doesn't give it back, then "steal" is the wrong word because one
doesn't take it away.
Honestly, it seemed to me you were making some kind of a joke, and I
just extended the precision that the joke relied upon to explain why the
joke's conclusion was wrong.
> mu'tlheghlIj qa'meH vIchenmoH 'e' vInID:
>
> <<mu'mey'e' Sun 'Iq DapoQpu'. yIleS. mu' rap lo'laH Hol pIm. qay'be'.
> SaHbe'lu'.>>
"Where this word is concerned, too much discipline you have required.
Relax. A different language can use the same word. No problem. No one
cares."
> jIQapta''a'?
Not quite. You have completely missed the idea that "stealing" is just
as wrong as "borrowing" when being precise about definitions.
> I need to speak English to be clear about this. {latlh} is a noun. It
> is not an adjective. In English, "another" is an adjective or a noun.
> In Klingon, {latlh} is never an adjective. It is always right to
> translate {latlh} as a noun. It may sound strange at times to do so,
> but the meaning of it stated as a noun is always correct because,
> well, that's what it is.
Again, you're being too precise. It is not always right to translate
{latlh} as a noun, because it is not always right to translate word for
word. Stating the meaning as a noun is not always correct, because,
well, that translation doesn't always make sense. Okrandian examples:
latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIqang!
Pour the cold bloodwine into another glass.
HeghDI' tlhIngan SuvwI' ... Heghtay lulop latlh tlhInganpu'
When a Klingon warrior dies ... other Klingons may perform ... the
Klingon death ritual
While one could make a case that the first example could also be
translated "another's glass", I fail to see how "another's Klingons"
makes any sense at all in the second example.
One might make the argument that this example is apposition, not a
noun-noun construction, but the sense of the Klingon seems to indicate
that "other Klingons" and not "others, (who happen to be) Klingons" is
the right translation.
The noun-noun construction is not always best translated with a
possessive. {latlh}, while a noun in Klingon, is not always best
translated as a noun. You seemed to be unaware that {latlh} in a
noun-noun construction can mean "(an)other" in addition to "(an)other's"
You seem to be resisting the idea even after I explained what I meant.
> In English, we say "Klingon language". In Klingon, a back-translation
> of {tlhIngan Hol} is "A Klingon's language". While it may be okay to
> loosely translate it as "Klingon language" in order to smooth it out
> for English speakers, {tlhIngan} is never an adjective in Klingon as
> it is in English. {latlh} and {tlhIngan} are very similar in this
> regard.
>
> You can suggest that {latlh Hol} be "loosely translated" as "another
> language", but it is useful for beginners (or experienced speakers who
> have forgotten this) to know that it NEVER literally means "another
> language" because {latlh} is NEVER an adjective.
Again, I refer you to the Okrandian example above and challenge you to
explain how "another's Klingons" makes any sense at all. Simple
possession doesn't cover the range of meanings in the noun-noun
construction. {tlhIngan Hol} does not mean "a Klingon's language". It
means "language that somehow pertains to Klingon(s)". In this case, the
pertinence is that it is the language of the Klingon race/culture/Empire.
Here is a quote from a former BG:
---start quote---
Not necessarily. IIRC the noun-noun construction is not only limited to
possessive constructions, but may be used for all types of genitives,
including what would be translated as an apposition in English: "man
spouse"; "woman doctor"; "food fight". We have the parallel canon term
{peQ chem} "magnetic field" (i.e. of all the different fields there are,
it's the one pertaining to magnetism). The lack of adjectives in Klingon
for "male" and "magnetic" means that this is the simplest way to do this
sort of construction. {loD nal} *could* mean "man's spouse", but it
doesn't necessarily have to.
---end quote---
Note that this is not canon, just discussion from this list. But I speak
Finnish, a language that has a genitive case, and I find this idea
convincing because the use of Klingon noun-noun construction parallels
the use of the genitive in Finnish.
(Mind you, it's not a 100% match, and the particular example we're
talking about is moot, because in Finnish the word for "other" is an
adjective.)
> Think about the difference between {nov Hol} and {Hol nov}. One is the
> language of a foreigner. The other is a foreign language. The
> difference in the word order is something that neither {tlhIngan} nor
> {latlh} can accomplish because they are not verbs, and so they cannot
> be used as adjectives.
>
> So, if I translate {latlh Hol} as "another's language", I'm right. You
> can suggest a loose translation of it as "another language", but you
> won't be right unless you explain that it is an intentionally
> inaccurate, loose translation. Otherwise, people start thinking of
> {latlh} as if it were an adjective that precedes the noun it modifies,
> and Klingon has no such grammatical construction, and no such part of
> speech.
Again, you are being too precise. If you want to stick with the
Okrandian definition: "The translation of two nouns combined in this
way, say N1-N2 (that is, noun #1 followed by noun #2), would be N2 of
the N1". Thus, {tlhIngan Hol} would be "language of the Klingon(s)".
However, that definition doesn't cover everything that the noun-noun
construction has been used for. In particular, even this definition
makes no sense in example #2 above: "When a Klingon warrior dies
Klingons of the other may perform the Klingon death ritual."
> All that said, you probably would have been better served with {nov}
> or {pIm}, since {latlh} could easily be another Klingon, and the
> language might not be different from a Klingon's language at all.
Again, I refer you to the Okrandian example above. The construction
{latlh} NOUN can be used (and has been used in canon) to mean "(an)other
NOUN" and not "(an)other's NOUN" or "NOUN of (an)other". When I talk
about one {Hol} and then say {latlh Hol}, judging by canon, it would be
understood as "another language" and not "somebody else's language".
While perhaps I another word would have served, I was best served by
{latlh} because that was what I meant. I have to do enough
circumlocution in Klingon that I prefer not to do so when the word I
want already exists.
>>> QoQ ta nIHwI' Darur.
>> jIyajbe'. mu'tlhegh vIyaj. "You resemble a thief of recorded music
>> (lit.
>> music record)". 'ach qech vIyajbe'. qatlh Dochvam vIrur 'e' DaQub?
>
> QoQ qon muchwI'. tavam ngev. Huchvammo' latlh qonlaH muchwI'.
> SoplaHtaH. yInlaHtaH. <<pem ghIgh>> poQbe'.
>
> tavam qon nIHwI'. je'be'. tlhap neH. 'ach not nIH 'e' qap.
> <<(vIqonmeH) wa'logh tavetlh vIlo' neH . tavetlh vIghajbe' (taqoqwIj
> vIlo'qa'mo'), vaj vIje'nISbe'!>>
>
> wejpuH. batlhHa' ngorta'.
Okay, so you think I'm a digital pirate. I can see why you make the
connection between what I said and digital theft, but consider this:
This kind of piracy is actually based on taking something away from the
owner. Because the pirate did not pay for the recording, the musician
did not get the money.
Language borrowing is totally dissimilar. The language being borrowed
from loses nothing as a result of the borrowing.
And am I to understand from this that the mutual respect you spoke of
above consists of you being allowed to compare me to a dishonorable
thief while I am not allowed to say anything that you might consider
criticism?
>> tlhIngan Hol lo'lu'taHvIS ngIplaH'a' Hol? wISovbe'. nIHlaH'a' Hol?
>>>> wISovbe'.
>>> Can a language borrow while one uses a Klingon's language? We don't
>>> know it. Can a language steal? We don't know it.
>> bIyajbe'chugh, pIch Daghajbe'. rut tlhIngan Hol wIjatlhtaHvIS, mu'
>> DIreyniS. vaj jiQIj:
>>
>> While one uses Klingon, can a language borrow? = Can we use the
>> expression "a language borrows" in Klingon?
>
> qaq mIw pIm.
>
> mu'mey nov lo'laH tlhIngan Hol?
"A different method (process) is preferable. Can Klingon use new words?"
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we should say this a
different way. But that was the point I was making in that part of my
message: We don't know how Klingons say this. We do know that they use
figurative language, and we do know that Okrand has used "borrow" in
English to describe not only Klingon absorbing words from English, but
Klingon reusing words from Klingon.
>>>> (ghu'vam'e' lugh <nIHghach>, <ngIpghach> je):
>>> "As for this situation, stealation and borrowation are correct." [?]
>> motlh mojaQ <-ghach> lo'laHDI' vay', latlh mojaQ je poQ mu'. 'ach rut
>> pagh latlh mojaQ poQ mu'. (pIjHa' qaS qhu' Seghvetlh.) ghu' Seghvetlh
>> 'oH ghu'vam'e' 'e' vIHar.
>
> jar maHar.
"A month we believe."
My best guess here is that you meant {jaS maHar}, in which case I would
respond that I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. (But I do
have to wonder who the "we" is.)
Or perhaps this is some new idiom (or new meaning of {jar}) that cropped
up in the last couple of years?
I was trying to point out that I was not mistakenly using {-ghach} on a
naked verb - I was doing it intentionally. I pointed that out because
some on this list are touchy about {-ghach}. (Or at least were when I
was active on this list before.)
> jIH SoHbe'ba'.
quSDaq bIba'