tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 11 05:12:22 2014

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Rant about verbs of motion

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



The imperative sentences are compatible with the "yeah you could do that but why would you?" explanation,  but the accompanying explanations in TKD are not. 

I think you didn't look up the shuttle one before replying. Marc gives three clear examples: returning to the shuttle, returning on the shuttle, and returning to somewhere on the shuttle. The walk example was also unambiguous in context. My rant was a rant, not laying out all the evidence for someone not in my mind to examine. You perhaps are unfamiliar with the purpose ranting? It is not a request for an explanation. It is a request for chocolate and hugs. I was even explicit about that part.

- Qov
 

-----Original Message-----
From: De'vID [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: June 11, 2014 4:17
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
Cc: Robyn Stewart
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Rant about verbs of motion

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Robyn Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
> Marc, rut HughlIj vI’uchchoH vIneH.
>
> In TKD, the most accessible work of canon for beginners, and the 
> foundation of everything we know about Klingon, you clearly explained 
> the use of jaH and –Daq with sentences like pa’Daq yIjaH Go to the 
> room! You repeated this in CK with teplIj yIwoH ‘ej pa’lIjDaq yIjaH, 
> in PK with naDevvo’ vaS’a’Daq majaHlaH’a’? and in TKW with may’Daq 
> jaHDI’ SuvwI’ juppu’Daj lonbe’. It was perhaps the clearest, best documented canon use of a word we had.

To play Fek'lhr's advocate here, three of those four sentences are compatible with what Marc said about verbs of motion later (since {yI-} and the null prefix can indicate an object, which may optionally be marked with {-Daq}).

The troublesome sentence is {naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?} It's part of a joke where {tlhob} and {jang} are effectively used as verbs of speaking, so it's already sort of problematic.

According to the later explanation, what would {naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?} mean? The going starts at {naDev}, here. The destination is unspecified, and the going takes place in {vaS'a'}, the Great Hall.
So: from here, can we go at (i.e., while at the location of) the Great Hall. I think that doesn't really make any sense, and the listener understands exactly what was meant.

Actually, this contradiction with verbs of motion in Klingon reminds me of another language that I speak, Persian. The grammar they tell you to use for such verbs in textbooks is completely different than what people actually say. According to textbook grammar, you use a preposition and put the destination before the verb. In speaking, you drop the preposition and put the destination after (and you also contract the verb, but that's an unrelated thing). According to textbook grammar, you're supposed to say "beh Tehran miravam" for "I'm going to Tehran". In speech, everyone actually says "miram Tehran".

I'm not saying that this is the case for Klingon, but clearly we have two somewhat contradictory explanations of the grammar of Klingon go verbs, and (on the assumption that, since both are canonical, then both are correct) they need to be reconciled. Supposedly, the grammar in TKD comes from Maltz's explanation, who isn't a linguist, and also from the observed speech of other Klingons in "real life". Presumably CK and PK also contain colloquial Klingon (some of which was spoken by a bumbling Terran tourist), rather than textbook Klingon. Now, Marc's later interview contains an explanation that's different than what we've seen before. But the interview is more geared towards an academic or linguistic audience. He's talking about what the proper grammar should be, which may be different than what people actually speak. He has, of course, canonised this excuse in KGT. So perhaps an upper-class Klingon, or any Klingon in a more formal environment like giving a speech at a university, would say {naDevvo' vaS'a'
wIjaHlaH'a'?} But the Klingon on the street will ask {naDevvo'
vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?}, and everyone would understand her.

> And then in what may be the clearest, most expansive interview you 
> have given, you threw that away, stating with unambiguous examples 
> that “the prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm 
> moving along in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to someplace.“
>
> So Marc, while I get that it’s nice to be able to distinguish between 
> locative and accusative, and understand that you don’t want to be tied 
> in
> 2014 to what you wrote about our language in 1987, how the fuck am I 
> supposed to tell beginners that they should say pa’ vIjaH when you 
> told them, in the only reference they own, to say pa’Daq jIjaH?

Tell them that both are acceptable?

> You did it again with chegh. ghorgh pa’wIjDaq jIchegh. (PK) became lupDujHom
> vIchegh       "I return to the shuttle."

There's a difference between {pa'} and {lupDujHom} though: the latter can be both a destination or a mode of transport, whereas the former can only be a destination. {ghorgh pa'wIjDaq jIchegh} means "when do I return to my room?" and can't mean "when do I return via my room?"
except perhaps in exceptional contexts.

> I don’t know wtf you were doing with CH:pa’ jIyIt’a’.

It's ambiguous in the same way as the English "Do I walk there?" (or more colloquially, "can I walk there?")

{pa' jIyIt} can either mean "I walk, and my destination is there" or "I walk while I'm there", just like English "I walk there". {pa'
vIyIt} would unambiguously mean "I walk to there".

> And you, you reading this, because Marc isn’t, if you interview Marc, 
> and ask him a question without presenting him with a complete list of 
> ways he has canonically used a word in the past, then you are guilty of this too.

To be fair, that may be quite difficult to do. We don't typically get a chance to talk to Marc except at special events like qep['a'|Hom], and when he's available to talk we may not be able to look up every canonical use of a word on the spot which we have a question about.

> Is
> the reason we don’t have more beginners learning this language that it 
> has turned into an unknowable morass of bonkers redirection? No, it’s 
> because kids these days don’t learn things from books.

The reason we don't have more beginners is because (1) Klingon isn't in the media so much now that there isn't a current Star Trek series on TV, and (2) it actually takes some effort to learn. Lots of people will remark offhand that they want to learn Klingon because they saw it on The Big Bang Theory, but when you actually provide them the opportunity to do it only a few will take it up.

Another thing is that people ("kids these days", if you will) have come to expect things to be free and immediately available. So, yeah, people will roll their eyes if you tell them to buy TKD. The problem isn't that it's a book so much as that it takes time, effort, and money to acquire.

I'm always getting feature requests for boQwI' which assume that things take no effort or time on my part to produce: add speech capability (working on it), translate arbitrary English sentences into Klingon perfectly (practically impossible, as Bing has discovered), add flash cards and games (Klingon flash cards already exist, but take effort to find), add structured lessons (I have links to Lieven's lessons on YouTube), etc.

> I’m desperately trying to
> address this, and becoming increasingly more desperate, as I survey 
> what is out there as try to come up with something honest, simple and 
> correct to tell these poor learners about how to use jaH. Or yIt. Or –Daq.

Real languages are complex. There's nothing wrong with introducing one way, and explaining later that the real situation is more complicated.

> Also qurgh and Holtej haven’t answered their e-mails lately, probably 
> because I’ve been harassing them and I’m weathered into a tiny 
> northern town and yuch vIneH. ‘ej qen Hegh ‘e’mamwI’ ‘a Hopmo’ ghaH 
> nol nablu’meH jIjeSlaHchu’be’mo’ jImogh.
>
> yuch vInejmeH Qe’Daq jIjaH XXXXXXXXX Qe’ vIjaH.

yuch DaSammeH yuch ngevwI' yISuch. At least here in Switzerland if you want chocolate a restaurant wouldn't be the first place you'd look.
Chocolate shops are everywhere.

> I’m really okay here, and I can’t expect instant e-mail replies but if 
> you happen to be in High Level, Alberta, I could use a hug.
>
> pItlh.

Do'Ha', pa' jIHbe'.

--
De'vID


_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol


Back to archive top level