tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 26 15:40:14 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
tlhoQ vIjangbogh
ghItlh Qanqor:
>One very simple thing that might help, by the way, is: if you have 5 small
>points to make regarding 5 different things, how about bundling them all up
>into one post, instead of 5 separate ones. It would save 4 sets of headers,
>4 rounds of .sig, and take up 4 less slots in an inbox.
quvbej mu'meyvam! qeSvam vIbuSqangqu'! vaj naDev jabbI'IDmey vIjangbogh
vItay'moH.
ghItlh Holtej'e':
>You're confusing the compound noun construction (TKD 3.2.1), which is what
>{jolpa'} is, with the N-N construction (TKD 3.4), which is used for
>possession by nouns. Okrand doesn't explicity provide a way to interpret
the
>compound noun construction.
I would urge you to reread TKD 3.4. My reading of the first paragraph gives
me the impression that the noun-noun construction and the compound are no
different semantically. N-N is translated N1's N2, or N2 of the N1. But "of"
does not always carry possessive connotations, even in English. Think of
something like "a coat of many colors".
If you see a distinctive pattern of semantic differences between simple N-N
constructions (the ones with spaces between the nouns) and the compounds (N-N
constructions with the nouns just scrunched together), then enlighten me,
please. I myself have not been able to notice it. If you can give me another
perspective, then please go right ahead. But, use specific examples. That's
the key.
ghItlh yoDtargh'e':
>Well, the next problem is that there currently is not any standard
>accepted practice for English-Klingon transliteration. If you wanted
[...]
I still do not understand why there could be a problem with the *way* I
transliterate anything. Why should anyone care if I make it {'ewrop} or
{yurop} or {yuvrop} or {'oSu}, SO LONG AS I *MARK* THE TRANSLITERATION AS
WELL AS INDICATE WHAT THE NAME IS IN ENGLISH ORTHOGRAPHY SO PEOPLE WILL
RECOGNIZE IT! The caps were for a very good reason.
You see, I am not by any means making up Klingon words, as you say. That is
not the nature of transliteration. We say "Maltz" and "Kruge" and "Kronos".
Are these made up English words? Of course not. They are names that English
speakers have used to try to imitate the original Klingon pronunciation.
Names are not really words. "Calvin" and "Susie" and "Istanbul" and
"Constantinople" and "Toad the Wet Sprocket" and "Depeche Mode", etc., etc.,
are not words in the same way that "bucket" and "electron" and "blood" and
"paint" and "bird" are words. They are classified differently.
For some words we of course have well established English spellings. But they
are all arbitrary. We don't have to define Klingon transliteration. When you
speak English, and you come to a Klingon-related word, do you use perfect
Klingon phonology for it. Of course not. When I talk, it's: "and I have the
Klingon Pickod font..." or "as soon as Kahless died..." bla bla. You get the
point. When I speak Klingon, why can't I be purist as far as
phonology/orthography is concerned, if I indicate what I meant in ( )s?
Contrary to what you wrote, we *do* know an awful lot about Klingon
phonology. I'd urge you to read Allen Wechsler's article in HolQeD 1:1. It's
classic.
There is no real standard transliteration system defined between any two
languages that I can think of. If you know of one, please enlighten me.
ghItlh chuQun'e':
>'ach.....
><terran word> chay' Dajatlh'a'
>I saw this questions similar to "Como se dice <Ice Cream>?" Would one
>need to add any reference to tlhIngan Hold if the question is asked *in
>Klingon*? I was taught that it was redundant to ask "Como se dice <Ice
>Cream> en Espanol?" Is the same true in Klingon?
True, it is ridiculous to ask how to say a certain Klingon word *in* Klingon.
What's weird is hearing foreigners say things like " 'duckling' means
'entje'." But Klingon has such a totally different structure. After some
careful thinking, I would guess that it goes like this:
<nuH> luQummeH [weapon] lulo' tera'ngan?
Thus:
<nuH> luQummeH nuq lulo' tera'ngan?
The Klingons know the thing they want to *communicate*, but they don't know
the thing the Terrans *use*.
Since Terrans learning the language will never ask how to say a Terran word,
just keep on asking "How do you say..." questions in English.
BTW, the reason I shy away from using {chay'} and {qatlh} (in case you hadn't
noticed) is because "how" and "why" are such vaguely definable terms in
English. Sometimes words in other languages that we translate as "how" ({wie}
or {comment}) can be used in ways the English "how" cannot. Thus they're not
accurate translations. "How" can mean "by what method" (How did he flee?-- by
running) or "in what manner" (How did he flee?-- like a coward). "Why" can
mean "because of what" (Why did he flee?-- he was scared) or "for what" (Why
did he flee?-- to get away from the enemy).
jeybe' mISvam. mu'vam Delchu'chugh *'oqraD* [Okrand] vaj vIlo'qang. 'ach
mISmo' jIHvaD notlh neH. rut vIlo'. pIj jaS qechchaj vIQum.
I think that worked out nicely. This will make for much longer postings, but
less posts. You're still reading the same amount of stuff. It's just shoved
all together.
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos