tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 07 13:25:57 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
If it's "a distinction where there isn't one" then it's one Okrand makes too. When he analyzes an utterance word-by-word for beginners, he routinely breaks down SAOs into their two component sentences. Two examples are in TKD (p. 65f.):
Several examples should make the use of 'e' clear.
qama'pu' DIHoH 'e' luSov
They know we kill prisoners.
This sentence is actually two: (1) {qama'pu' DIHoH}
"We kill prisoners"; (2) {'e' luSov} "They know that."
The pronoun {'e'} refers to the previous sentence,
"We kill prisoners."
yaS qIppu' 'e' vIlegh
I saw him hit the officers.
The two sentences here are: (1) {yaS qIppu'} "He/she
hit the officer"; (2) {'e' vIlegh} "I see that". The
construction might equally well be translated as "I
saw that he/she hit the officer" ...
There are many more examples in Okrand's st.klingon posts and KGT, but I can't find any right now in my notes as I foolishly (I now realize) deleted these tedious word-by-word analyses. You may be right, in that Klingons never actually speak that way, but they do seem to be grammatical. OTOH I seem to recall Captain Krankor postulating a scenario on the lines of:
CREWMAN1: yIHoj! martaq Sa' puqloD ghaH laghvam chu''e'.
Beware! That new ensign is the son of General Martok.
CREWMAN2: qhuy'cha'! 'e' vISovbe'.
Damn! I didn't know that.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 2:45 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
>
> I honestly think you are making a distinction where there isn't one. In
> all cases {'e'} refers to the previous sentence, whether you put the
> period between the two sentences or not. The romanized alphabet and
> punctuation that we use is merely a phonetic representation of spoken
> Klingon, and in Klingon EVERY use of the pronoun {'e'} involves two
> separate sentences.
>
> So, this really is the QAO problem, at its root. When I say, {wa'Hu'
> bIjatlh 'e' vISovbe'}, I'm saying "I don't know that you spoke
> yesterday." Meanwhile, if I were to say (and this is, so far as we know
> a completely bogus, faulty attempt at a Klingon statement), {nuq
> Dajatlh 'e' vISovbe'.} then the problem is that I'm not really wanting
> {'e'} to represent the entire previous sentence. I'm really intending
> {'e'} to represent the unknown thing that the single word {nuq} is
> standing for. I'd be trying to say, "I don't know what you said," and
> I'd be completely wrong in thinking that this is what I had actually
> said in Klingon. Instead I'd be saying something like "I don't know
> that what did you say?" It's gibberish in English, too, unless you make
> the same kind of "Let's ignore the grammar here and just cherry pick
> the words out of the sentence that we want to pay attention to" thing
> that you are doing in the Klingon.
>
> It's like if I said, {yaS qIppu' puq 'e' vIlegh} and instead of
> intending it to mean "I saw that the child hit the officer," I instead
> really wanted it to mean "I saw the child who hit the officer." I'd be
> mistakenly using the pronoun {'e'} to represent one word out of the
> previous sentence instead of meaning the entire previous sentence. The
> word {puq} or the word {nuq} is just a word, not a sentence, and that's
> the thing you are using {'e'} to replace. That's the mistake.
>
> Actually, the real problem here is that in English, we use relative
> pronouns that don't exist in Klingon. Relative clauses in Klingon are
> based on verbs instead of pronouns. This is further complicated by the
> way English uses the same words as interrogative words and relative
> pronouns. This is less of a problem in my example than in yours because
> it is easy to recognize that a person who uses a question with {nuq}
> who is trying to build a relative clause should just use the Klingon
> equivalent relative clause. But you used {chay'} which has no Klingon
> equivalent as a relative pronoun.
>
> In your example, what you want is a relative pronoun we don't have in
> Klingon. You want the non-interrogative version of "how", as in, "I
> know how to tie my shoes." Klingon doesn't have that word because
> relative clauses use verbs at the root instead of pronouns as in
> English. You can't use the Klingon interrogative {chay'} as a relative
> pronoun, and that is frustrating. I feel your pain, but wanting it to
> work doesn't make it work.
>
> So, when we want to say something like, "I know how to tie my shoes,"
> we have to completely recast the sentence to be something like "I can
> tie my shoes." It means the same thing, but it avoids the impossible
> grammar of the original. You could also say, "I know the in-order-to-
> tie-my-shoes method." I'm sure there are other ways to cast it, but
> Klingon simply lacks a way to say, "I know how to tie my shoes." The
> grammar is not there to do it. Making following a question with {'e'}
> is tempting, but it doesn't work.
>
> pItlh.
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
>
> > Voragh:
> >>> chay' van bomvam? wej 'e' vISov.
> >>> How does this song end? I don't know [that] yet.
> > lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> >> Are there any canon examples of a question as object as you propose
> >> here? Typically, {'e'} represents a sentence, not the answer or
> >> response to a sentence, which is what you are suggesting.
> >
> > Actually, this wasn't the dreaded question-as-object (QAO). That
> would be (correcting my earlier mis-use of {van}):
> >
> > * wej chay' bomvam luvan 'e' vISov.
> > I don't know how they end this song yet.
> >
> > It's actually two separate sentences.
> >
> > chay' bomvam luvan? wej 'e' vISov.
> > How do they end this song? I don't know that yet.
> >
> > And yes, I know it's a fine distinction - especially in speech - but
> the pronoun {'e'} "that (previous topic)" can be used this way, just
> like any other pronoun. E.g.
> >
> > 'e' luSov
> > They know that. TKD
> >
> > 'e' vIlegh
> > I see that. TKD
> >
> > 'e' neHbe' vavwI'.
> > That wasn't what my father wanted. ST6
> >
> > 'e' bop.
> > That's what it's all about.
> > (Qanqor at qep'a' 2005; usage approved by Okrand)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Voragh
> > Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>