tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 07 13:58:56 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu'tlheghvam yIlughmoH
Again, I'm confused. Sorry. You said:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
I interpreted that to mean that you think that sometimes {'e'} is used within one sentence to refer to an earlier part of the same sentence because perhaps we didn't put a period there and the English translation makes it one sentence. I said that I thought you were creating a distinction where none exists because in all cases, whether there's a period there or not, or regardless of how it is translated in English, the original Klingon use of {'e'} always implies two sentences.
So, I was saying there is no distinction between something with {'e'} in the middle with no period vs. something that does have a period. In both cases, it is always really two separate sentences. I'm saying that you are creating a distinction that doesn't exist.
As what appears to be a counter-argument you show Okrand saying exactly what I'm saying. When you use {'e'}, the original Klingon grammar is ALWAYS two sentences. The first sentence is the sentence that {'e'} represents. The second sentence is the one containing {'e'}.
But you seem to think that you are saying the same thing as Okrand and I'm saying something different.
I don't get it. I'm confused.
pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
On Jan 7, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>