tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 08 00:03:54 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

This 'n' That

Ok, because there's a lot that I seem to need to reply to, and because I have
severely limited time, and because some of this is followup and clarification
of my recent post about corrections, this post is also in English.  I promise
that this won't become a habit. {{:-)

First off, let me clarify a bit on the correction thing.  What I'm talking
about is specifically taking someone's in-Klingon post and correcting it.
Discussions of grammatic issues and proposed solutions are certainly allowed
and don't count as "corrections".  Responses to posts that were of the form
"Gee, how do you say XXX?  I tried YYY, what do you think?" are discussion, not
correction.  The idea is NOT to limit or stifle legitimate discussion, and
large banners saying "THIS IS NOT A CORRECTION" are really not necessary. {{:-)

In addition, let me amend the correction rule to include something that was
implicitly clear to me but never actually explicitly stated anywhere:  If
someone *explicitly* invites correction and comment, as was the case with
the lullabye, then this is a slightly different case.  In this case, the
comments and the corrections are probably sufficiently intertwined that it
is too difficult to separate them, so go ahead and make the corrections.  But,
hey, try not to dwell on the simple correction aspect more than necessary,
since it is likely that others will make the same corrections.  Maybe stick to
a quick note of what the correctly formed phrase would be, without the detailed
explanation of why.  I don't know, this is a case we'll have to feel out and
figure out what makes sense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>        Reply to:   Krankor and bumper stickers
>
>Wow!  You KNOW it's important when Krankor writes in English (NOT his
>native tongue BTW ;)

qarqu' {{:-)

>In regards to the bumper stickers (which I thought was a GREAT idea), what was
>the final say?  Can the grammarian re-post the correct phrases here? (I may
>have missed them.. sorry)

I forgot who posted the original bumper-sticker list, but I trust that he
has sorted through and assimilated all the corrections by now.  I'll let
whoever it was re-post the list, corrected as he sees fit.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Here is a Klingon lullaby.
>Please give me your critique/corrections.
. . . .
>yIQong puqoy
>DaH yIjaH 'oy'
>leSghach qem ram
>'ej DaH bItam
>bIQongtaHvIS yay DanajlaH      ; self-correction from later post applied
>pa' puqoylI' pIQapqu' maH

I get:  "We WORK/SUCCEED/FUNCTION you there, your puqoy" (leaving puqoy
untranslated since the English could never do it justice anyway).  Huh? I can't
even figure out which meaning of Qap to use, cuz none of them make much sense
to me in this context.  I'm particularly suspicious of the -lI'/pI-
combination.  Methinks at least one of those has to be wrong, since "your
puqoy" cannot be the object of a "we/you" combination. but overall I just don't
get what the intended meaning is.  Am I missing something?


>yIQong puqoy
>yIQong puqoy
>wa'leS Dajey jaghlI' Hoch
>wa'leS Daghaj 'u'vam Hoch

These last two seem to have word order problems.  If I guess the intended
meaning correctly, in both cases the object has been put after, instead of
before the verb.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Unfortunately, as charghwI' said also, I'm not allowed to correct any
>grammar. But I will tell you a few words I would have written differently
>for a better (imesho) overall semantic value. (Am I allowed to do THAT,
>O Great Guru of Grammar?)

As clarified, I hope, in my above comments, the answer is most certainly "yes".

>Now, on to semantics-- those last two lines, specifically.
>Assuming {jaghlI' Hoch} means "all your enemies," (TKD only lists it
>as a noun, but I've seen this adjectivial function popping up more and
>more), then that function could work the same for {'u'vam Hoch}.
>Well, I dunno. {Hoch} as an adjective would be more like "every."
>For some obscure reason, I doubt you wanted to mean "all these universes."
>Try {'u'vam naQ} or maybe just {'u' naQ} since it is THE universe,
>and not compared to this or that universe, unless you want to get
>into metaphysics.
>Still, I realize this would screw up the rhyme.


>    I appriciate Guido#1 responce to my lullaby. 
>    I do feel I can justify jaghlI' Hoch   and   'u'vam Hoch by simply
>refering to TKD 3.4.  where N1 N2 construction  would mean " N2 of the N1". 
>Thus  'u'vam Hoch  would mean "all the this universe" or everything of this
>universe".  Thus we are still saved  Hoch from becoming a verb/adjective.
>     I welcome your debate.

>David Barron

Both viewpoints are very interesting and have merit.  David is right in that
what he is doing is in fact N-N, and there's no issue of Hoch being an
adjective.  My take is that using Hoch like that leaves it ambiguous (i.e.
clarified by context) whether one means "all universes" or "all of the
universe".  The use of naQ does provide an unambiguous alternative.  Not that
there's anything wrong with ambiguity-- tlhIngan Hol is chock-full of it-- but
it's nice to be aware of other options.  Indeed, I may well start using naQ
myself, although Hoch is certainly legit.


>     Note: According to recent instructions, only approved grammarians can
>answer this request...
>
>     I, not being such a beast, am compelled to refrain from expressing an
>opinion, except to say that my skills have improved from having my
>corrections corrected. I will miss this resource.
>
>--   charghwI'

There is no need for you to "miss this resource".  As I said, if you wish to do
correcting, you need merely make a request to do so (private e-mail to me), and
a posting requiring correction will be delegated to you.  It's like stopping at
a traffic light; it doesn't mean you don't ever get to go, it just insures that
only one person goes at a time.

Of course, the big problem here is that, if your corrections need correcting,
then you have entirely mislead and mistaught someone who knows less than you,
until such time as the correction is corrected, which is going to make their
learning all the more difficult.  {{:-)  So it's really important to try to be
absolutely correct when you correct.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


>[Shoulson]vaD:
>
>Did you read my letter to HolQeD (2:3), in which I stated that I seemed
>to have found a new use for the pronoun {net}.
>
>To say, "It was difficult <for me> to kill the captain," this new use of
>{net} could be utilized:
>
>{HoD vIHoHpu' net Qatlh}
>
>Now, those of you who haven't read that letter, don't ball me out yet. I
>found this new function on ST5. One of Cpt. Klaa's first lines in the 
>movie was subtitled "Difficult to hit," in reference to the small Terran
>probe they were targeting. It sounding to me more than anything else like
>{qIp net Qatlh}. I think we're dealing with an authentic unpublished
>new Okrandian rule that allows {net} to function as the subject of a verb.
>AT LEAST if that verb describes a state of being, viz., an adjectivial
>verb. It is out of syntax for the verb-subject order, but even so, it seems
>valid to me. At least until/unless Okrand contradicts it.
>
>Still, I'm not sure about other verbs (that don't function as adjectivials
>such as {quq}). I doubt *{vIbaH 'ej mubaH net quq} is acceptable from what
>we know. 
>
>latlh vuDmey vIQoyqang
>
>[Guido] wa' - [Guido]pu' Hoch DevwI'

Just off the top of my head, I'd have to say that I found the tlhIngan Hol in
ST5 to be so piss-poor (absolutely the worst of all the films) that I'm
reluctant to read too much into anything we find in it.  I think the most I'd
be willing to say about this example is that it would tend to support what
charghwI' puts forth below:


>THIS IS NOT A CORRECTION. IT IS ONLY A COUPLE SUGGESTED THOUGHTS.

No, it is not a correction.  Large caveat banner really unnecessary.

>     On the topic of sentences as subjects, I suggest that the problem is
>usually related to the use of infinitives (requiring rewording ANYWAY,
>because Klingon doesn't have them) and Klingon verbs intended to avoid the
>English verb TO BE. In the English example "It was difficult for me to kill
>the captain," the interesting verb here is "was". You want "I killed the
>captain" to be the SUBJECT of "was difficult". The thing is, in English, "to
>be" is refexive. "I am Will," is the same thing as "Will am I." While we
>rarely say it that way, it would be technically correct to say, "Difficult
>was it to kill the captain." So why can't we use 'e' and make "I kill the
>captain" the OBJECT of the verb? I know it is a weird idea, but frankly, I
>can easily understand:
>
>HoD vIHoHta' 'e' Qatlhqu'pu'.
>
>     To me, this says, "It was very difficult that I successfully killed the
>captain," in much the way that "Qatlhqu'pu' 'e' vIQub" means, "I think that
>it was very difficult."
>
>     As for quq, my immediate tempation is to say something like:
>
>vIbaHta' 'ej mubaHta' 'e' quqbejpu'
>
>     Again, I'd see this as, "They obviously happened simultaneously that I
>shot him and he shot me." Maybe you'd be happier with:
>
>vIbaHta' 'ej mubaHta' 'e' quqbejpu' wanI'meyvam
>
>     "These events clearly happened at the same time that I shot him and he
>shot me." I like it less, since it is redundant and noun-centric. Still, it
>does spell out the grammar and meaning a little more explicitly.
>
>     Is this really bad form? While there are no specific cannonical examples
>I know of to point to, I don't think I'm just making stuff up here. It feels
>like a natural extention of the existing grammar; even less. It feels like it
>follows all the rules, inventing nothing.
>
>--   charghwI'

I'm not certain that this argument is strong enough to go with, but I must
confess that I like where it's going.  I used to use constructions like this
all the time until I happened to notice that, technically, they don't quite fit
the formal rules.  Still, my gut reaction is that they "feel right", which, of
course, is unscientific and holds no water-- yet, on the whole, my instincts
for the "look and feel" of this language have generally been pretty on the
mark.  But anyone who disagrees does have some ammo.  Yes, "to be" is reflexive
in English, but it isn't so clear that this also applies to the "to be" concept
embedding in a Klingon state verb such as Qatlh.  I think a lot of this hangs
on what we think about the whole topic of the nonspecific "it":


>Well, I'll have to go find an English teacher informant, but I think
>the "it" in "It was difficult for me to kill the captain," is rather
>Anglicizational. It doesn't sound natural to English speakers to say
>"For me difficult was to kill the captain." We might say "To kill the
>captain was difficult for me," but even that form sounds rigid and in
>tune with the formal written English. We have a tendency to use the
>word "it" a lot, as in "It's cold out here," "It's raining/snowing."
>What does the "it" really stand for. That's an interesting question
>for English grammar. I doubt Klingons use this method to get by, since
>it's much easier and more to-the-point to say {bIr Hur} or maybe (and
>this one's imesho dangling on the edge of argumentation) {bIr naDev}.
>Disregard the latter if it looks uncomfortably familiar. We've already
>argued that point. Some of you might like it better as {bIr DaqwIj}, 
>right? Who knows?

I don't know.  How universal is this mysterious "it" concept?  It is more than
just Anglicization, because I know it exists in French as well.  Still, it may
well just be an IndoEuropean thing or something.  This is a rare case where
even *I* would be interested in knowing more about how other terran languages
do (or don't do) such things.  {{:-)

And, of course, more importantly, do we have any tlhIngan Hol examples of its
use?  The ST5 "net" example is in the right ballpark, but, like I said, I have
some reservations about it.

In short, I would *really* like it if sentences like "verengan ngorlu' 'e'
Qatlh" (or net Qatlh), or "naDev Dapaw 'e' QaQ" were proven legal.  My gut feel
is that they are, but I don't think we have proof yet.


Oh.  And back to what lead to all of this:  quq.  While I agree that the use of
quq is somewhat ill-defined and speculative, I would not call anybody to the
carpet for doing something like this:


nuHlIj bach quqpu' HeghDaj      "His death happened simultaneously with 
                                    your weapon's shot."

Of course, I always tend towards the looser interpretation of what can be an
object.

In any case, it certainly seems on very safe ground to do the compound subject
solution which somebody posted but I forgot to quote.  It was something like:


quq baHghachwIj baHghachlIj je      "You and I fired at the same time."

While this solution was objected to as being cumbersome, I'm not sure that I
agree.  The only thing here that is really cumbersome is having to use that
-ghach all over the place.  More and more I'm less and less convinced that this
is necessary, that perhaps a looser reading of 4.2.9 is in order after all.
But even aside from that, it's mostly a vocabulary issue.  Notice that if we
use the noun form of bach, which is still pretty close in meaning, we get a
sentence that, while very different in structure from the English, is not a
klunky Klingon sentence at all:

quq bachwIj bachlIj je


Oh well, I've rambled on long enough.  I think I'm caught up now and can resume
with tlhIngan Hol next time.


                --Krankor

Back to archive top level