tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 25 08:43:01 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: HolQeD miscellanea



Nick Nicolasvo':

>Yeah, I'm aware of that, which is why I mentioned the "house of the here"
>translation. I was going to retort "but the absent -Daq means it's behaving
>like an adverb", but now I think about it, you can just as well say it's
>a noun in locative case (i.e. the -Daq is still there in spirit, it just
>doesn't get pronounced). But there's no similar suffix to be omitted for
>DaHjaj, which behaves the same way. In essence, these words behave just
>like they do in English, and not a word of justification is given in TKD
>(though we know nouns aren't *supposed* to occur in that position), so
>I'm hesitant to consider naDev the grammatical equivalent of juHlIjDaq;
>I'd want less ambiguous evidence for apposition than this. naDev and
>juHlIjDaq don't just have to be both nouns; they also have to be prepositional
>phrases for this to be an apposition...

First of all, being a Klingon *grins*, I have no idea what this mysterious 
'prepositional phrase' is.  However, I will agree with you that <naDev> wanted 
-Daq there.  However, when I read this article, it was plain as the nose on my 
face that Qanqor obviously intended to do so... but recalled that wonderful 
rule on page 27 of the bib... er, the KD:

	[typos are all mine]

	"It is worth noting at this point that the concepts expressed by the 
English adverbs "here," "there," and "everywhere" are expressed by nouns in 
Klingon: <naDev> "hereabouts," <pa'> "thereabouts," <Dat> "everywhere."  These 
words may perhaps be translated more literally as "area around here," "area 
over there," and "all places," res[ectively. Unlike other nouns, these three 
words are never followed by the locative suffix."

So naturally, Qanqor did not include it.  But it wa obvious to me that this 
was his intent.

Note also that despite the way they seem to be used, these are STILL nouns.  I 
do not think you can make any sort of argument without recognizing that fact.  
They are nouns, as far as Hol is concerned.  Just because they are something 
different in English doesn't mean that they cannot be a noun in Hol; in fact, 
this is the case with these three concepts.  I question your logic here.  Yes, 
<naDev> may very well be *acting* like an adverb here... but accourding to the 
KD, it is not an adverb; it is a noun.  We cannot arbitrarily say that, since 
it *acts* like an adverb, then it must *be* an adverb... which is what you 
seem to be saying, to me.  (If this is wrong, please clarify; I admit I am 
*not* a linguist, although my English professor said I would have a promising 
career as one.  y'all can take that as a compliment, as I had never even 
*heard* of Linguistics before I came here... so everything I 'know' I learned 
from y'all ;) )  This is faulty logic.  We have to go with what we know.  We 
know that <naDev> is defined as a noun by the KD.  We also know that, for some 
strange, unexplained reason, it doesn't take -Daq.  Based on those two facts 
(and possibly even the fact that the KD has a way to express adverbs... or at 
least, adverbials, although I confess I am ignorant of the difference between 
the two words?), I do not see why <naDev> cannot be used in opposition this 
way... after all, it is being used as essentially a noun+Daq (although the -
Daq must be ommitted), which is comparable in structure to the <juplIjDaq> 
wich followed.  I do not see anything wrong here.  Do you see where I am 
coming from?


>=>7. p. 19. I'm not sure what to make of trI'Qal's translations of her
>=>Holorimes. Either she's misinformed about Klingon grammar, or is in fact
>=>quite ingenious in exploiting it. (I'm thinking in particular of
>=>jup, lI' Daq 'e' ghoS ta' --- "Friend, the emperor goes away from the site
>=>which is transmitting.")
>=Um, I translated very loosely.  This is a sentence-as-object construction.  
>=Look at it again.  If you are referring to the word <jup> at the front, I 
>=suggest you re-read the section on Names and Addresses.  If you are 
>referring 
>=to something else entirely, then you better state what exactly is confusing 
>=you. :)
>
>OK, what you claimed you were saying is not what you're actually saying.
>The reason I made that comment is that what you ended up saying still makes
>sense --- and is a somewhat novel use of "'e'" at that. What you're actually
>saying is, "Friend: the place is transmitting. The king approaches this
>event." Your translation corresponds to: "jup, lI'bogh Daq ghoS ta'" (lI'
>isn't stative, so can't be an adjective, and isn't in the right place for
>it anyway.)


*sighs*

As I said, I was translating a bit loosely.  While the others who made their 
submissions chose to give the exact, literal translation, I tried to go for 
interpretaion a bit more.  Perhaps I erred in so doing, and if so, the fault 
is mine.  I simply tried to give a more intelligible meaning than what was 
said literally.  If, on the other hand, you have a problem with the meaning as 
a whole, then that is another matter altogether.  After all, if you look at 
the meanings of some of the other entries, some of those were... 
incomprehensible?  ... the meanings did not have to make sense, just be 
grammatical.  So I tried to make mine make sense.  This is a problem?


--HoD trI'Qal
  tlhwD lIy So'

Back to archive top level