tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 05 07:19:37 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: targh lut
According to Terry Donnelly:
>
> chargwI', thanks for the helpful comments. This is the longest text I've
> written
> so far, and contained many tricky (to me) constructions that evidently
> came out all right.
Quite welcome. Yes, you have due cause to be pleased with your
work.
> William H. Martin writes:
>
> > The only negative comment I have at first glance is that you
> > seem to miss the point about tense in Klingon. [stuff deleted]
> > Meanwhile, Klingon does not have tense. Using
> > aspect as if it were tense doesn't really work. Aspect is used
> > to mark the degree of completion of the action relative to the
> > time setting of the story set by context.
>
> jIyaj. I think I really do understand aspects (I hope I used them
> correctly within the dialog), but I got momentarily confused about
> narratives. I think you have cleared up my confusion.
Thanks for becoming more specific about my concern. Yes.
Evidence is that narratives have both a context time setting
for the story itself and perhaps a different one for the words
of speaking the story, but, unlike English and perhaps other
Terran languages, Klingon does not hammer away with
tense/aspect markers throughout the story.
I tend to think of these in Klingon as tools to help sort out a
sequence of events, explaining overlaps when the verbs do not
appear in order of occurance (as is often the case in
conversation). Meanwhile, a story typically is told in
sequence, and except for pointing out overlaps or marking
separation (one act ended before the next began), most verbs in
a narrative usually do not need any aspect marking. Instead, it
needs some sort of time context with new time contexts set when
needed.
> >> /jIghungqu'. jIHvaD Sop yInob./...
>
> > You probably mean to use {Soj} instead of {Sop}.
>
> Urk. What can I say? HIvqa' veqlargh.
[charghwI' goes back to his business as if nothing happened...]
> >> // /SuvwI' quv,/ jatlhqa' targhHom, /jIghung. jIHvaD SopHom yInob./
>
> > Again you use {Sop} when you want {Soj}. Also, this is
> > stretching the use of {-Hom}. It is a diminutive, not just
> > "small"....
>
> The sense I wanted was "some, a portion of". The tape PK has the phrase
> {Ho'Du'lIjDaq to'baj'uSHom lughoDlu'bogh tu'lu'}, translated "you have
> *some* stuffed tobaj leg in your teeth." To me, the alternatives you
> suggest don't say the same thing.
Good point. I had forgotten that canon. I retract the
correction, since you were apparently quite correct. Thank you
for pointing out a good tool I intend to remember in the future.
I think it looks weird, but, hey, it's canon, right?
> >> juHDaq jItuQHa'moHtaHvIS wepvo' targhHom vIlelDI' ...
>
> > I don't think you want {-moH} in the middle of
> > {jItuQHa'taHvIS}, unless you want {vItuQHa'moHtaHvIS}. That
> > suffix implies transitivity.
>
> I am now confused about {tuQ} and {-moH}...
My point here is that any verb with {-moH} in it becomes
transitive. It then REQUIRES an OBJECT. The prefix {jI-}
implies NO object. This combination seems wrong. I think what
you were originally after was probably {jItuQHa''eghmoHtaHvIS},
which is both probably right AND controversial. "While I was
causing myself to unwear clothes". It's just weird enough that
somebody is bound to have a problem with it, but I think it is
what you were after. I also think it works.
As for {tuQ}, well, it is one of those strange words in TKD.
What exactly does Okrand mean by putting the word "clothes" in
parenthesis? tuQ = wear (clothes) (v). Does he mean that the
word "clothes" is implied in the verb, so it is intransitive? Is
he merely making sure we are not misinterpreting the verb to
also mean "abrade" or wear in the sense that one wears a beard
or perfume or long hair or a scowl? We are not sure. I don't
remember any canon showing us how to use this verb.
> ... Is the following correct?
>
> {jItuQ} I am wearing clothes.
> {jItuQHa'} I am not wearing clothes.
I'm not sure. My gut reaction is that if "clothes" is implied
in the verb, as you have it here, then the next example is
wrong. If the next sentence is right, then this last pair of
sentences was wrong. I don't see this as one of those verbs
that can be used either transitively or intransitively
whenever we like.
Given the TKD entry for {tuQHa'moH} and {tuQmoH}, I tend to
favor {tuQ} being intransitive. Of course, if this were true,
Okrand would have far better defined {tuQ} as "be dressed"
instead of "wear (clothes)".
I suspect that {tuQ} was one small entry on a large list of
other words that Okrand came up with all at once and {tuQ} did
not perhaps get the attention it needed, similar to the verb
{pong}. Both of these verbs have problems associated with their
usage that are not as yet addressed by Okrand.
> {nIvnav vItuQ} I'm wearing my PJs.
> {nIvnav vItuQHa'} I'm not wearing my PJs.
This latter example would require some context to get this
definition. It could also mean that you have them on backwards;
that you "miswear" your PJs. In fact, for "I'm not wearing my
PJs", the word would almost certainly be {vItuQbe'}.
Again, if {tuQ} is intransitive, these last two sentences would
not be valid, and {tuQmoH} would be simpler to understand and
use.
> {jItuQchoH} I'm getting dressed.
> {jItuQHa'choH} I'm getting undressed.
Again, if this is true, I wish Okrand had made the definition
"be dressed" instead of "wear (clothes)". I think this IS true,
but we could really use a pointer from Okrand on this.
> {nIvnav vItuQchoH} I'm putting on my PJs.
> {nIvnav vItuQHa'choH} I'm taking off my PJs.
This seems so naturally right, it really makes the intransitive
{tuQ} hard to accept. I waffle.
> {puq vItuQmoH} I'm dressing my child.
> {puq vItuQHa'moH} I'm undressing my child.
That's {puqwI'}. Otherwise, you are just dressing THE child or
A child. These examples are certainly right.
> (lacking) I'm dressing my child in its PJs.
puqwI' vItuQmoHmeH ghaHvaD nIvnavDaj vInob.
or more succinctly:
puqwI' vItuQmoHmeH nIvnavDaj vInob.
> So the phrase from my story should be {jItuQHa'choHtaHvIS}, "while I am
> becoming undressed", right?
I think this would work fine. Also, as stated earlier,
{jItuQHa''eghmoHtaHvIS} would probably work. The {-'egh} suffix
makes the {jI-} prefix transitive, fitting the needs of {-moH}.
Thinking more on this, I think that it makes sense for {tuQ} to
be transitive, with the object being the particular clothes in
question. With {tuQmoH}, the focus shifts from the clothing to
the person you are dressing or undressing. In particular, I
suspect that someone using {tuQHa'moH} has little concern for
the details of the clothing being removed, focusing instead
upon the nuvoy thereby revealed.
Those inclined to fixate on the clothing rather than the person
might prefer verbs like {teq}, {nge'}, {tlhap} or even {nIH}.
Whatever charges your disruptor...
> > charghwI'
>
> -- Terry
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |