tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 28 04:19:23 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Verbing objects
While I agree with all of this, the English sentence that was originally being translated, "We agree to disagree," uses an infinitive, which Klingon doesn't have, so why slavishly hang on to the nearest wording we can think of, which is apparently, "We agree that we disagree."? This is awkward, but acceptable in English. "... that we disagree," isn't a direct object in English.
We don't agree it. We agree "on" it.
Wouldn't it be simpler to rephrase it to:
maQoch 'e' wIghov.
We recognize that we disagree. We accept that we disagree. If you ask "Do you disagree?" We both answer, "Yes." There are many ways to say this clearly in Klingon. Why push to say something that makes most of us wince because it most closely mirrors the literal wording of a specific English statement?
It just comes across as lazy. You don't want a language. You want a clever, easy method of encoding English. Meanwhile Klingon rather inconveniently happens to be a language.
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:22 PM, "SuStel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <[email protected]>
>> What about {Qoch} & {Qochbe'}? This came up a few months ago regarding use
>> of sentence-as-object for the matter agreed upon: whether it was correct
>> usage to say ?{maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'}. Would you object to this usage? Also
>> an object could logically be the person (dis)agreed with, as in ?{muQoch
>> matlh}. But would a Klingon would tolerate an imprecise construction like
>> ?{maHIvrup 'e' Qoch matlh jIH je} when it would be just as easy to state
>> who thinks what: {maHIvrup 'e' Qub matlh. jIQoch}?
>
> In the end, you're just asking whether the object of {Qoch} is the
> matter disagreed with; the rest is just a distraction.
>
> I like your "I participate conference" idea. If I said, "I disagree
> policy," you'd understand me. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude
> that {ngoch vIQoch} is a valid sentence, if we believe that the only
> restriction on objects is that they make unambiguous sense. If I said,
> "I disagree Maltz," you'd also understand me, so perhaps {matlh vIQoch}
> is also valid.
>
> I'm not saying this is a grammatical proof of anything, just that we
> might use it to help us English-addled people try to figure out whether
> an object makes sense with the given gloss. For instance, I can say, "I
> sleep bed," and you'd understand me, but in this case *{QongDaq vIQong}
> is—presumably—not valid, because you don't sleep the bed, you sleep
> ON the bed, and Klingon has a noun case for that: {QongDaqDaq jIQong}.
>
> As for your sentence-as-object example, I think it's flawed. If we
> assume that {Qoch} can take an object, then I interpret {maHIvrup 'e'
> wIQoch jIH matlh je} as "Maltz and I (both) disagree that we are ready
> to attack." In other words, we both think we're not ready to attack;
> we're not disagreeing with each other. Perhaps to disagree with each
> other we need to say {maQochchuq}, but then we obviously can't add an
> {'e'} object to that sentence.
>
> Like I said, if we give up a strict interpretation of our English
> glosses, it becomes difficult to decide on proper subjects and objects.
> But I think that might just be the boat we're in.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol