tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 12 14:13:42 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: Noun phrase comparatives



According to Craig Altenburg:
> 
> After reading Krankor's column in HolQeD (2:3) I decided to give this a try:
> 
> tu' QIp tlhoblu'ghach ngeD law' Qagh QIp ti'lu'ghach ngeD puS

I can't read this. {tu'} looks like it is supposed to be a
noun, but I know of no noun spelled that way. "One's asking a
stupid [tu'] is easier than one's repairing a stupid error."

That's a liberal stretch, seeking meaning here.

> I have a second question about about phrases like "tu' QIp tlhoblu'".  TKD
> says that when using the -lu' suffix the first and second person subject
> prefixes are used to indicate first and second person objects (and yes I
> know the example is third person).  My question is whether an explicit
> object occurs before the verb or after it.  The example with the verb "tu'"
> would seem to indicate that the object stays in its normal location (that's
> how I used it in the phrase above) but the reference to passive voice (in
> which English "switches" subject and object) made me think it could be
> otherwise.

This has been a hot topic in the past. In fact, you combine
several hot topics here. This is probably beyond KLBC.

First, apparently the omission of 3rd person in the passive
voice description was intended to allow the potential for the
use of passive voice with an intransitive verb, like ba'lu'.
"One sits." There is no way to translate that into a passive
construction in English.

Still, whenever the verb is transitive, evidence is strong that
the passive voice is called for, even with the third person. In
addition to making the subject indefinite, most canon examples
of {-lu'} also shift the focus to the object to such an extent
that the meanings of the suffixes get applied to the object
instead of the subject.

Note that in your sentence, trying to squeeze it into a passive
voice mold is extremely awkward. <The stupid [tu'] is asked>
must be turned into a noun, then that noun is easier than the
noun extracted from <the stupid error is repaired>.

Of course, that's what Krankor was after. One sentence is
easier than another sentence. If there were a way to squeeze
two sentence-as-object constructions together into a
comparative, the same goal could be achieved another way.

I choose to avoid criticizing my beloved Captain and instead
choose to invite him to offer you advice on how to best use the
materials he provided in that article. My own approach would be
completely different:

tlhoblu'taHvIS QIplaHlaw' vay'. janglu'taHvIS QIplaHbej vay'.

While one asks, anybody can appear to be stupid.
While one answers, anybody can definitely be stupid.

I know it is not the original English, but it avoids what
Klingon does so awkwardly and uses what Klingon uses so
elegantly. The difference between {-law'} and {-bej} is a tool
that Klingon offers that you don't have easily in English.

It also avoids this whole nominalization business, which at its
very best is still awkward in Klingon.

I hope you don't find my dodge offensive. When I see a tangled
mess, the first thing I look for is a way to dig back to the
MEANING of the sentence and see if there are better tools in
the language to convey that meaning. I think this particular
example is actually an improvement over the original English in
the sense of expressing the moral of the story.

> Qeygh

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |


Back to archive top level