tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 22 11:09:28 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Context
muyajchu' Qov. Apparently I mis-placed {-chu'}, as I also did "clearly" in the English. So now it's time for (an entirely appropriate) replacement proverb: DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'! <g>
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
From: Qov.
> 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.
>
>
>