tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 05 05:58:28 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Canon for answering negative questions
Qov:
>> > What canon do we have indicating whether the answer to a
>> negative question like :
>> >
>> > 'umbe''a' loDHom?
>> >
>> > would be
>> >
>> > HIja', 'um.
De'vID:
>> I don't have any canon, but what reason is there to think it
>> wouldn't be {HIja', 'umbe'} to begin with? The answer to
>> {'umchoH'a'} is {HIja', 'umchoH}, and the answer to
>> {belHa''a'} is {HIja', belHa'}, etc. I can't think of any
>> reason {-be'} should behave differently than any other suffix
>> in how it interacts with {-'a'}.
DloraH:
> In your examples you did say more than just "yes" or "no". You answered with a sentence expressing
> the correct state.
That was just to explain or clarify how I'd interpret the answer. But
I don't think the additional explanation is actually necessary.
DloraH:
> But when answering simply yes or no, there can definitely be confusion.
Is there any reason to believe that {-be'} behaves differently than
{-Ha'} (or {-qu'} or any other suffix)?
{QeyHa'?} "Is it tight?"
{HIja' (QeyHa')} "Yes. (It is tight.)"
{ghobe' (QeyHa'be'}) "No. (It is not tight.)"
Or would you interpret {HIja'} as {QeyHa'be'} and {ghobe'} as
{QeyHa'}, or find a bare {HIja'} or {ghobe'} to be ambiguous? Or to
use QeS's example:
{naDev jIQal vIneH; Qobbe''a' bIQ?} "Is it safe to swim here?"
{HIja'. (Qobbe'.)} "Yes. (It is safe.)"
{ghobe'. (Qob.)} "No. (It is not safe.)"
Or would you interpret the responses in the other direction or find
them ambiguous?
I'm trying to wrap my head around why anyone thinks this is ambiguous
*in Klingon*. (I agree that such questions are ambiguous *in English*,
but I don't see why the answer wouldn't follow the logical parity of
the question in Klingon.)
{tujqu''a'?}
{HIja' (tujqu')}
{ghobe' (tujqu'be')}
{tujchoH'a'?}
{HIja' (tujchoH)}
{ghobe' (tujchoHbe')}
With {-qu'}, answering {HIja'} affirms that "yes, it is emphatically
hot", and {ghobe'} denies that assertion. Similarly, with {-choH},
answering {HIja'} affirms that "yes, it is becoming hot". This seems
to apply unambiguously for every suffix. So, with {-be'}, why wouldn't
{HIja'} be an affirmation of "yes, it is not hot"?
DloraH:
> I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the US, we encounter too many people that
> slaughter the language, speaking with double negatives, say things like "I can't see nothing." (I
> encountered this one just yesterday.) Such a person that does speak like that could certainly give
> a different answer than someone who is a computer programmer with a hobby in linguistics.
But how much weight would I want to give to such a person's
understanding of grammar?
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> My problem with this interpretation of {HIja’} and {ghobe’} is that different people will say with absolute confidence that a yes or no answer means exactly the opposite of what other people say it does.
Has anyone actually asserted that he or she would interpret {HIja'}
and {ghobe'} to a negated question in the opposite way to how I'd
interpret them?
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> In the Shakespeare speech, he is saying, “Do we not bleed?” as a kind of incredulous reaction to the suggestion that we are below the threshold of beings one should empathize with. He’s saying, “Are you so bold as to suggest that we do not bleed?”
The answer to a rhetorical question may very well take on meanings
quite different than the same answer to that question asked in a
regular, non-rhetorical context. But this discussion is about
grammatical interaction of {-be'} with {-'a'} in ordinary contexts.
(Maybe it has a different meaning in rhetorical questions, and maybe
you have to put {-be'} after {-'a'} if the negated question is a
toast.) The question I'm answering (and Qov may very well have a
different idea than me what question she wants answered) is, if I said
to a medic, {mareghbe''a'?} "Do we not bleed?", would the medic's
{HIja'} mean "Yes, you do not bleed" or "Yes, you do bleed".
{mareghchoH'a'?} {HIja' (SureghchoH)}
{mareghqu''a'?} {HIja' (Sureghqu')}
{mareghtaH'a'?} {HIja' (SureghtaH)}
{mareghbe''a'?} {HIja' (Sureghbe')} - if someone interprets {HIja'} as
{Suregh}, I want to know why
I'm not saying the opposite interpretation is impossible, but I
genuinely just don't understand why anyone would interpret it that
way, given the grammar of Klingon.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> So, if you answer “Yes” or “No”, are you answering the part about whether or not you are so bold, or are you answering the part about whether or not we bleed?
If someone asked me {mareghbe''a'?} in Klingon, I am answering "yes"
or "no" to whether the statement {mareghbe'} is true. If someone
wanted to know if I'm so bold as to challenge whether they bleed or
not, I'd expect the question to be {mareghbe' 'e' Damaq 'e'
DangIl'a'?}
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> In general, I think this is the kind of question best answered with a clear and complete statement, instead of bothering with a “yes” or “no” that can be so easily misinterpreted.
I think the question is easily misinterpreted only by English
speakers. Of course, almost all Klingon speakers are native English
speakers, so most Klingon speakers will probably find it ambiguous the
way that you do.
What you're suggesting is basically an "echo answer":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_answer
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol