tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 22 10:44:51 2011

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Context

Robyn Stewart ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Perhaps I've lost track of who exactly said what, or who was 
responding to whom but:

Dayajchu' - you understand it completely
Dayajbe'chu' - you don't understand it at all
Dayajchu'be' - you don't have a perfect understanding of it

This last matches what Voragh intended it to mean.

>I was going for "You don't understand the situation clearly" or "You don't
>quite understand the situation" (i.e. there are one or two fine points that
>you've missed).

I know SuStel knows that. I hope the below were the contentious 
sentences, whose author I have lost track of:

> > >  ghu'maj Dayajbe'law', Sa'
> > >  "You don't seem to grasp our situation, General."

Correct.

> > > which could be modified:
> > >
> > >   ghu' Dayajchu'be'
> > >   You clearly don't understand the context.

And *here* is where "clearly" is misapplied in the translation. "You 
clearly don't understand the situation" (whether that would be 
interpreted as 'context' or not is another question) should be 
rendered as ghu' Dayajbe'ba'.

I hope that is what everyone was saying all along, or that whoever 
said otherwise briefly misread a suffix or suffix ordering.

ghu' vIyajchu'be' net tu' 'a pab vIyaj.

- Qov



At 09:17 22/07/2011, you wrote:
>The translation "clearly" is confusing the meaning. You're using it as if it
>were {-ba'} or {-law'}. Use "completely" or "perfectly" to get the right
>meaning, even if it doesn't sound colloquial. {-chu'} does not mean "it is
>clear that, it is well-understood that."
>
>ghu' Dayajbe'chu'
>you completely do not understand the situation, you entirely fail to
>understand the situation
>
>I see no reason to express what you want with {-chu'}; there is no reason to
>talk about utter failure to understand. It is enough to say {ghu' Dayajbe'}
>"you don't understand the situation." Add {-ba'} if you want to make it
>clear that the lack of understanding is obvious; add {-law'} if you want to
>say that it *seems* like there is a lack of understanding. Only add {-chu'}
>if you want to indicate an utter lack of comprehension (ghu' Dayajbe'chu'}
>or a lack of perfect comprehension {ghu' Dayajchu'be').
>
>This utterance is not an exact equivalent to saying, "you don't understand
>the context." It *might* be used in the same circumstance, if the context
>being discussed is, in fact, a particular situation.
>
>I agree that this is just one of a long list of jargon words for which there
>should be no surprise we have no word. I'm more surprised that we have as
>many words describing linguistics concepts as we have.
>
>SuStel
>http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>Behalf Of Steven Boozer
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 10:15 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: RE: Context
>
>I was going for "You don't understand the situation clearly" or "You don't
>quite understand the situation" (i.e. there are one or two fine points that
>you've missed).
>
>--
>Voragh
>Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>  lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > Actually, I'd interpret your last sentence to mean "You imperfectly
> > understand the situation." For "You clearly do not understand the
> > context," I'd have expected {ghu' Dayajbe'chu'} or {gnu' Dayajbe'ba'}.
> >
> >
> > On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:09 AM, [Voragh] wrote:
> > > lojmit tI'wI'nuv:
> > >> Given how often Okrand has explained that aspects of the language
> > >> requires context to comprehend detail, it is ironic that he has not
> > >> given us a word for "context".
> > >
> > > Nor words for "surroundings", "environment" or "topic" for that
> > > matter.  The
> > closest equivalent I can think of is {ghu'} "situation" or {wanI'}
> > "phenomenon, event, occurrence".  There's a line by Azetbur in the ST6
>novel:
> > >
> > >  ghu'maj Dayajbe'law', Sa'
> > >  "You don't seem to grasp our situation, General."
> > >
> > > which could be modified:
> > >
> > >   ghu' Dayajchu'be'
> > >   You clearly don't understand the context.

Back to archive top level