tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 30 21:31:14 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: ngIp (verb)
> Seng rap vISIQ. pablaw' mu'tlhegh, 'ach Huj mu'mey DawIvbogh.
> I had the same trouble. While the grammar seemed okay, your choice
> of vocabulary was...unobvious.
maj. jIQochbe'
>> 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.
>
> rap "precise" <pup> je 'e' DaHarmo' Dayajbe'lu' 'e' vIQub.
> I think it's your belief that {pup} means "precise" that kept you
> from being understood readily.
I don't actually believe it means "precise". Indeed, if you look at my
first response in this thread, you will see that "precise" is not one of
the meanings I provide for it. It was just the closest I could come. You
suggested {qar} later in your post, but I think "You're being too exact"
comes closer than "You're being too correct".
>> 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.
>
> How about:
>
> mupbogh qam vIDelbe'. qech pIm vIHech. chaq <qar> vIlo'choHchugh
> Dayaj.
pupbe', 'ach nIv.
>> ...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.
>
> I think you're confusing the informal term "steal" with the legal
> term "larceny". One can certainly steal intangibles. When
> discussing artistic expression, for example, the legal term is
> "plagiarize".
And again, in that case, you're actually taking something from the
owner; with plagiarism it's proper attribution. Because of your actions,
the owner (in this case, the original author) doesn't have something he
is supposed to have. Totally unlike linguistic borrowing, where the
"borrowee" loses nothing by the action of borrowing.
>>> 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,...
>
> Dayajbe'. yImughqa'. tlhobtaH Doq 'e' 'oSbe' mu'tlhegh cha'DIch 'e'
> yISov. qaqbogh mIw pIm chuptaH.
> You do not. Try again. And this time recognize that the second line
> is a suggested different method for expressing the idea of "borrowing
> words", not an actual question on his part.
Yes, I did actually realize that his second line was a suggestion and
not a question. In fact, the part you cut off continues "...you are
saying that we should say this a different way." I simply fail to see
how giving me another potential way to express the idea helps identify
which of the many possible potential ways the idea would actually be used.
Especially as the suggestion given is way more vague than the idea in
question. Obviously Klingon can use new words; the latest words in the
New Words list are dated December 2007. That doesn't mean they were
borrowed/stolen/adopted/adapted from another language.
>>> jar maHar.
>> "A month we believe."
>> (But I do have to wonder who the "we" is.)
>
> jIja'choHpa', cha' qab neH lutu'lu'. <maH> cher <SoH> <jIH> je.
> chay' 'e' DaSovbejbe'?
> Until I entered the discussion, there were only two people involved.
> How can you fail to put "you" and "me" together to make "we"?
Because "we" means more than one thing. I thought he meant "I and
someone else believe differently (than you do)" and I was wondering who
the someone else was. The very fact that there were only two people is
what made that sentiment seem strange. I would have said {jaS jIHar} or
{jIQoch} in that situation, and so his use of {ma-} threw me.
>> I was trying to point out that I was not mistakenly using {-ghach}
>> on a
>> naked verb - I was doing it intentionally.
>
> 'ej Dayajlu'taHvIS, jumghachHom ghaj ta'lIj 'e' 'angbej ghaH.
> And he was successfully pointing out that the result, while
> understandable, was not without a modicum of odditude.
Undoubtedly it's odd. That's why I made sure people knew I was doing it
intentionally.
And I'm not sure why you think he was "pointing out" that they were odd
- that point was never in contention, since I quoted MO saying
(essentially) that they were odd but occasionally appropriate.
The only point in contention was whether or not this was one of those
appropriate occasions.
I've been inactive on this list for a long time, and I realize that my
Klingon is rusty. So if people are seeing my errors and merely glancing
over (or even skipping entirely) the rest of my post, I can't really
complain. But I can take issue when someone accuses me of something that
person thinks I did rather than something I actually did.
I don't know if you skipped part of my post or read it too quickly, or
what, but you are dinging me here for something I didn't do. I never
pretended the {-ghach} constructions weren't odd. I was, in fact, the
one who pointed out they were odd.
A similar point applies to the "{pup} = precise" issue and the "Can
Klingon use new words?" question. And maybe others that I am too tired
to catch at the moment.
I generally accept constructive criticism, but I find it more helpful
when it's correcting errors that I am actually guilty of.
Also, please notice that I don't immediately assume that phrases like
"How can you fail to..." (and other similar things scattered throughout
your post) are intended to insult my intelligence. I see no reason to
automatically assume someone is being a jerk.
Perhaps you *were* doing it intentionally; perhaps you are a jerk or
maybe you wanted to "teach me a lesson" or something like that. But I
prefer to assume that you are trying to help, and expressed yourself poorly.
Not a very Klingon attitude, I know. But I have no desire to be a
Klingon or act like one. I just find the language fascinating. This is,
after all, the {tlhIngan Hol} mailing list, not the {tlhIngan nugh}
mailing list.