tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 05 07:32:14 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Canon for answering negative questions
I think there is a fundamental difference between the suffixes {-Ha'} and {-be} that runs parallel to the difference in English between "misunderstand" and "not understand". In English, the first kind of negation is part of the verb itself, while the second is done with a helper word. In Klingon, the {-Ha'} always comes directly after the verb, while {-be'} is a true roving suffix, applied following either the verb root or any of its suffixes to apply its negativity either to the suffix it follows, or to the whole of the root verb and the preceding suffixes.
Evidence also is that if I ask you:
choyajHa'a'?
Then you can answer either (using your definition of a proper yes/no answer):
HIja'. qayajHa'.
or
ghobe'. qayajHa'be'.
But if I ask you:
choyajbe''a'?
then you can answer
HIja'. qayajbe'.
but you can't really answer
*ghobe'. qayajbe'be'.*
We have examples of verbs followed by {-Ha'be'}, but there has never been any indication that it is acceptable to apply {-be'} to another instance of itself. Likely, this could be tantamount to having two verb suffixes of the same type applied at once to the same verb.
So, if I ask you a yes/no question that you can't answer "no" to, then it's not really a yes/no question, is it?
You could use logic to conclude that the {ghobe'} reply would omit the {-be'}, but the simple truth is that language isn't always logical. You can argue that language SHOULD be logical, and it often is, but relying on logic that is independent of canon is risky business. One pronouncement from Okrand and you are left hanging.
{-Ha'} is the kind of negation English creates with "un-" or "mis", while {-be'} is the kind of negation English creates with the helper word "not". As much as I usually fight the idea that Klingon is encoded English, here's one instance in which there is a direct parallel between the languages. I've talked to Okrand about this difference, so I think I understand it pretty well.
So, I think you can ask me {choyaj'a'?} and I can answer it {HIja'} or {ghobe'} and you will be sufficiently and clearly answered, but if I ask you {choyajbe''a'?}, you'd be better served to give the complete statement and forget the idea that it's okay to answer {HIja'} or {ghobe'}. It's a weird enough construction that likely the culture handles it idiomatically, if they do use {HIja'} or {ghobe'}, and being an outsider, it's probably not safe to assume which way the Klingon idiom goes.
We've heard people complaining here about double negatives in English, like "I didn't see nothing," or "I ain't goin' nowhere," but I've read where linguists point out that in other languages, particularly in Africa, a double negative serves as an emphatic negative, which is exactly the intent of these English speakers who make the "mistake" of using double negatives. Likely, this use of double negative is less of a mistake than it is a ghostly shadow of dialect developed by people who learned language from a lineage of people who, at an earlier time, spoke a language for which double negatives are perfectly acceptable as an emphatic negative. It's the kind of thing that a child at the peak age of acting as a language sponge would pick up on. It would become a permanent part of what is normal for them in speech. It is sufficiently fundamental that it would be almost like learning a foreign language to stop doing it.
So, perhaps we could consider that and give them a little grace for their perfect understanding of this slight variation of the English language, instead of judging them of being wrong and deserving correction, or considering them to be ignorant or inferior.
None of this helps me improve my opinion of my distant cousin whose ancestors likely never included anyone who spoke African languages who chided his wife saying, "Woman, you ain't got no good English!" He wasn't joking when he said that, by the way. His ancestry was fully British, with a touch of Cherokee, which, I believe, doesn't use double negatives... Nope. He was just a sexist, putting his wife in what he considered to be her place, which was to shut up and make his dinner.
On May 5, 2014, at 8:58 AM, De'vID <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol