tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 11 23:09:30 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: law' puqpu'
- From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: law' puqpu'
- Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 23:57:39 -0400
> As for being corrected by the profoundly honorable Captain Krankor, I
>completely accept his suggestions, with one exception:
>> > Is there no verb for "be born"? The first effort should always be to
>> >structure the sentence around some verb other than "to be".
>>
>> Why? Please cite the page number that supports this conclusion.
>> Contrary to some popular beliefs, "to be" is not a leper or a
>> stepchild, it is a perfectly valid part of tlhIngan Hol. I don't
>> give a damn what Okrand said about his personal feelings toward it;
>> he put it into the language and it's there. He also put in nuqneH
>> with some misgivings, but that doesn't mean we go around telling
>> people to avoid saying it.
> "I don't give a damn what Okrand said about his personal feelings toward
>it..." HoSqu' mumeylIj. On this, I think we have a difference of opinion, and
>as much as I respect HoD Qanqor, I cannot in good conscience offer him higher
>authority on tlhIngan Hol than Okrand.
Yes, but the point is that *I* am citing Okrand too. The problem
here is that Okrand has contradicted himself by saying one thing in
the published dictionary, and another thing in private conversation.
In the end, his published word must carry greater weight. I support
the use of -'e' on a double-nouned -bogh phrase in part because of
his verbal support in private conversation for it, but if he
published something officially that contradicted that, I would have
to back off of it.
> Using Krankor's arguement, we could start "taH"ing everything because of
>>the regrettable line: "taH pagh taHbe'." Hey, it's RIGHT THERE IN THE
>>DICTIONARY, RIGHT?
It sure is. taH is a completely acceptible word meaning "to
continue, endure, go on", and anybody using it as such cannot be
called taHqeq. Telling someone they can't or should not use taH is
just incorrect. I'll cite you an even stronger one. While the
policy of this list is to, in general, avoid clipped Klingon, for
the sake of clarity, it is none the less so that, in a context where
clipping is appropriate, the kludgy construction of 7.3 is
completely valid, even though we *know* that the only reason it is
there is as a backfit for the infamous changed subtitle. I
personally hate the construction, but there it is in black and
white, and I could never knock someone for using (given an
appropriate context for clipping). And that is why I stand by my
statement: I don't give a damn how he *feels* about it until/unless
he makes some official or at very least public pronouncement or
even insinuation of rule.
> That was the topic of my single conversation with Okrand. I was seeking
>things in the language that expressed the alien nature of the culture. Okrand
>brought up the example of his intent to structure the language away from the
>verb "to be". That's why there are all those "be hot" or "be few" verbs in
>the language. There's a real, intentional thrust away from "to be" built into
>the Klingon language at its core.
It does not follow from this that every sentence that might
potentially use the give "to be" construction ought to be reworked
to avoid it. A certainly possible interpretation is that, having
put in all those adjectival verbs, and made the "to be" use the
funky pronoun system, his goal of keeping the thrust of "to be" down
was sufficiently realized.
> Krankor points to 6.3, page 67. Fine. Read it. "There is no verb
>corresponding to English TO BE in Klingon." Following that are seven
>sentences and six examples intended to be aids in working around the absence
>of the verb "taH" later awkwardly added under pressure from the producers in
>ST6.
They are not work arounds. They are a valid construction. And,
despite the fact that the (loose) English translation of taH pagh
taHbe' is "To be or not to be", taH does not, never has, and never
will mean "to be". It means to continue or endure.
> I think it no wiser to tell people to NOT tell people to avoid "to be"
>than to tell them to avoid using "to be". It is a difference of opinion
>between two people with good reasons for believing each is right. It is not a
>correct statement by an authority vs. an incorrect statement by one lacking
>authority.
This is the real crux of the disagreement. You see, I have no real
problem with you and I discussing and disagreeing over this.
Certainly one of the points of this list (THOUGH NOT THE PRIMARY
ONE-- HINT, HINT, PEOPLES!) is to discuss finer points of the
grammar, and this is fine. Indeed, if you were criticising *my*
writing, I would look at it carefully, and indeed quite possibly
agree with you in some circumstances. But the point is that this is
a controversial, cutting edge arguement, and it is COMPLETELY UNFAIR
AND INAPPROPRIATE to embroil someone who is just getting going
*learning* the language in such controversy. Before the person
involved has even learned how to *do* the "to be" with pronouns, you
are hitting them on the head for even considering using "to be" in a
sentence. In the end, the choice of "to be" or not-- that is, "to
be" or not "to be" {{:-)-- is one of style, and not grammar.
*First* let them master the grammar, *then* when they know more
about the language they can make their own decisions about
controversial issues of style.
To cite a relevant parallel: At the Klingon camp, I conspicuously
avoided having my students do the indirect-object-subsumed-in-a-prefix
thing, even though, as you know, I am a strong and outspoken
proponent of it. The point is simply that, since the students were
beginners, it simply made sense to first teach them the stable,
solid parts of the language. Indeed, on the last day of class, I
presented that particular controversy to them, and allowed Lawrence
to represent the other side of the argument.
> I also still believe that gender is somewhat less important to the
>Klingon mindset than the human one. There are no verbs for "be female" or "be
>male", there are no affixes as such for this function and there are four,
>count 'em, FOUR words in the ENTIRE LANGUAGE (six, if you count the noun-noun
>combination with "child") that make any reference to gender whatsoever. Are
>you really so sure this is a casual omission?
> As for the culture, a girl is as likely to grow up to be a great soldier
>as a boy. About the only functional difference between them relates directly
>to who plugs what into whom and who bears the child.
I wish that this were so. Unhappily, what's actually true is a
mish-mash hodge-podge. The writers have never been consistant on
this topic. For instance, sometimes women are not permitted to even
serve on the high council (recall the brouhaha with DuraS's
sisters), and sometimes they are allowed to indeed be top dog (ST6).
They are certainly able to be first officers (Mara, Vixis), but not
able to be captains (or at least that was supposed to have been a
definite part of ST5, but the relevant scenes were cut. The idea
was supposed to be that Vixis was living vicariously through Klaa
because she, as a female, could not be captain herself. I don't
know if this comes out in the book, not having read it). I would
like it to be the case that they care about gender as little as you
suggest, but I'm not convinced the case is there for it. Indeed,
I'm not convinced that they care any less about gender then the
super-enlightened humans of the Federation living at that time.
> But my original comment on gender was intended to be casual and I will
>accept the correction in that area.
And as a casual comment, it would be fine. But when you are
correcting a beginner, it does not come off at *all* sounding casual.
> "To be", however, is, IMESHO, a verb that
>truely should be avoided whenever possible by anyone seeking to UNDERSTAND
>Klingon, as opposed to being merely able to change English words into Klingon
>words, like those who think Signed English is Amslan.
I'm not clear on IMESHO. It looks similar to IMHO. Assuming the O
is the same, the key is that, at this point at least, it is just an
opinion. A valid opinion, sure. One worthy of respect and
consideration, absolutely. But *not* something to be feeding a
beginner as if it were established gospel. Unless you *at least*
put in a caveat to that effect.
> So as to avoid the inaccurate perception that this indicates a lack of
>respect for Captain Krankor, I wish express a strong statement to the
>contrary. I have seen no one else post Klingon text with the clarity and
>grace that Qanqor displays with dependable regularity. He speaks Klingon
>better than Okrand speaks Klingon. He is without peer. I believe it is futile
>for me to aspire to acquiring more than a pale shadow of Krankor's skill at
>speaking the language.
Compliments appreciated, to be sure. {{:-) But seriously, you can
chill, d00d, the caveat was really not needed. No offense or
thoughts of disrespect were even thought of. I am not likely to
misinterpret honest disagreement on a point with personal attack; I
trust the feeling is mutually shared. Though I will correct you one
more time here: You should *certainly* aspire to acquire my level
of skill. You are obviously capable of it, and I for one would welcome it. {{:-)
> Still, I believe he is capable of error,
Absolutely.
> and the ease with which he
>embraces direct translation of sentences based on the "to be" verb is the one
>area where I believe him consistently misguided. On this, I would face him,
>ridge to ridge.
Face away. {{:-) Again, just recall that it is a disagreement, not
an established fact.
Oh, and by the way, for the record, I would state that there is at
least one instance in which I am in complete agreement about
avoiding "to be". That would be the case where you have to do large
backbends and jump through hoops, and use 15 -ghach suffixes to get
the sentence to come out with the same structure as the original
English. In a case like that, looking for a more natural Klingon
expression might well make more sense. But the original sentence
about due-dates hardly fit into that category.
>-- charghwI'
--Krankor