tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 21 07:50:26 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
Ahhh. Always refreshing to face Guido in full argument mode.
The flash of disruptors... The singing tones of sharpened steel
as betleH strikes betleH...
According to [email protected]:
>
> >From: [email protected] (William H. Martin)
>
> >This is a point of contention. If you believe that {Xlu'} = {X
> >vay'}, then you are right...
You later state that I said that {Xlu'} = {X vay'}. Please
reread my statement.
> I don't believe that Okrand felt it so necessary to make such correlations
> between Klingon and English grammar in his development of the language. He
> put in the qualification suffixes, tho English has nothing like them.
I've said nothing about what he chose to INCLUDE that is not in
English. I suggest that he faced the problem of English text
written in the passive voice and he needed a device to cope
with it. He could have done it many ways. Evidence is that this
is the path he chose.
> English
> also gets by without {-moH}, perfective, the topic marker, and sundry other
> Klingon grammatical concepts. Meanwhile, Klingon gets by without a lot of
> things that English relies heavily on, such as the copula, an instrumental,
> an irrealis, a generic adverbializer ("-ly"). These things are best recasted
> when going from one language to the other.
While these statments are true, they offer no basis to contest
the observation that {-lu'} was quite possibly invented
specifically to solve the problem of translating English text
in the passive voice into Klingon. Okrand built a different set
of devices to deal with the copula, and it might well be that
Okrand simply didn't run into an instrumental or an irrealis in
the text that he was translating. As for a generic
adverbializer, well, Okrand can make up another adverb any time
he likes (as he proved with the SkyBox card where he used
{motlh} to mean "usually"). None of this weakens the likelihood
that {-lu'} was invented to handle the English passive voice.
> Okrand even has stated that he
> strove to create a "mindset" for Klingon, as natural languages all have.
So?
> >Since much of the language was developed while Okrand sought to
> >express all the lines in the movies spoken by Klingons...
> >...it is certain that he had to
> >deal with the English passive voice.
>
> Indeed, the first usage of {-lu'} was {batlh Daqawlu'taH}.
...
> >Still, I strongly suspect that {-lu'} was specifically designed
> >to handle the translation of English passive voice, whether or
> >not it was intended to be the exact equivalent of it. In
> >English, the passive voice functions as a verb with an
> >unspecified subject. In English, there is no equivalent
> >grammatical construction to passive voice intended to address
> >an unspecified object, so Okrand did not need to solve that
> >problem with a grammatical construction.
>
> I have already stated that I believe this to be irrelevant, since Okrand put
> plenty other things into Klingon grammar that have nothing to do with English
> grammar at all.
This is not an argument. While it is true that Okrand added
things that do not exist in English, he certainly didn't add
EVERY IMAGINABLE GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION to the language. He
needed to handle passive voice. He did not need to handle
translating English sentences with indefinite objects the way
he had to handle English sentences with indefinite subjects
(i.e. passive voice).
> But to the point: You state that you think Okrand put {-lu'}
> in Klingon to deal with translation of the passive voice but at the same time
> changed it a bit to make it more 'alien', if you will. However, I think it
> should be pointed out that Okrand most likely got the idea for {-lu'} from a
> little item some languages have (~mark can attest to this) called an
> impersonal.
It may well be that when he faced the English passive voice, he
saw a similarity to the impersonal. So? There is no more reason
to presume that Okrand wanted {-lu'} to be EXACTLY LIKE the
impersonal than it is to presume that it is to be EXACTLY LIKE
the passive voice.
> ~mark dug up something from Basque about an impersonal that does
> the same transformation deal that Klingon does when it flops (while still
> looking for a better word than "flops") the prefix. That's also a bit
> irrelevant, but I'm just saying that Okrand knew what he was doing with
> {-lu'}: it overlaps passive in many semantic respects, but the {-lu'}
> impersonal does not put emphasis on the object, the same way passive does.
Oh? You have any canon to back that up?
> Why should it? {-lu'} is an impersonal in every grammatical and semantic
> regard, and we can conclude that, since it works exactly like impersonals in
> other languages, and only bears some degree of resemblance to the passive
> voice.
Thank you for playing.
"... since it works exactly like impersonals..." Oh? [Do you
realize how difficult it is to raise eyebrows up onto a Klingon
ridge?]
> >This suspicion combines with that one weird TKD example
> >{HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} = "it made him/her willing to die" to make
> >me think that the {-lu'} moves the "willingness" implied by
> >{-qang} from the subject "it" to the object "him/her" in a way
> >that {HeghqangmoHpu' vay'} would not have done. In fact, I think
> >that "it made him/her willing to die" is really better stated
> >as "He/She was caused to be willing to die." The latter better
> >expresses the sense of an unspecified subject, and it happens
> >to be in the passive voice.
>
> So you believe that in {HeghqangmoHlu'}, the meaning of {-qang} which
> normally applies to the subject transfers to the object because of the
> presence of {-lu'}. More likely it is the {-moH} which transfers this
> meaning. And I will demonstrate this further.
More likely? Well, on the same page, we have {wIchenmoHlaH} =
"we can create it". If moH shifts verbal suffix meanings to the
object, why doesn't this mean, "we cause it to be able to be
formed"? Or on page 47, why doesn't {chenHa'moHlaH} mean "it
causes them to be able to disintegrate" instead of "it can
destroy them"?
I suggest that {wIchenHa'qangmoHlu'} means "We are willing to
be destroyed." I suggest that {nuchenHa'qangmoH vay'} means
"Someone is willing to destroy us." I further suggest that
these translations are not assigned by mere context. The
willingness is assigned to the subject or object depending upon
whether the {-lu'} device or the {vay'} device is used.
While canon is limited, it reinforces this view and does not
contest it.
> {HeghqangmoH} could be interpreted two different ways, depending on context:
> "cause to be willing to die" and "be willing to cause to die."
I simply disagree and you have no canon to back your view.
> The latter
> would be *{HeghmoHqang}, however that's ungrammatical since the suffix order
> is rigid. Both meanings are equally useful and pragmatic, and context can do
> a fine job of sorting them out, as I've noticed in Hamlet (remember what I
> said to you about practical usages in translations, charghwI'? Well, this is
> it.)
Just because translation forces you to face grammatical issues
does not mean that the act of translating will consistently
bring you to arrive at correct conclusions. Similarly, writing
original works is no less valuable to the development of skills
with a language than translating another person's words. Both
are good. One does not have greater authority over the other.
> Anyways, we mustn't base an assumption that {-lu'} transfers the meaning
> of {-qang} the object based only on one canonical example that could be
> interpreted two different ways.
I'm trying to grasp what you are basing YOUR assumptions on. As
weak as my one canon example may be, you seem to have even less.
> I will explain the way I understand {-lu'}. I hope you will recognize where
> my or your error in reasoning lies so that we can both straighten out our
> lines of thought. In other words, I'm not saying you're wrong, but just hear
> me out.
In due respect, I recognize that you may very well not be
wrong. Then again, we may BOTH be wrong. Only Okrand is the
judge and he has not spoken yet on this topic.
> {Xlu'} equals {X vay'}
> [Even you've stated this, charghwI']
Please go back and read what I wrote.
> Any intransitive verb with {-lu'} must be interpreted as
> "someone/something/anyone/anything Xs."
I don't agree. I'd use "one Xs," which is not the same thing as
ANY of the examples you cite. "One sits," is not at all the
same thing as "someone sits," "something sits", "anyone sits,"
or "anything sits." {Daqaw'lu'taH} means, "You will be
remembered," or "One will remember you," but it does not mean,
"Someone will remember you," "Something will remember you,"
"Anyone will remember you," or "Anything will remember you."
{noHwI' loSlu'taHvIS ba'lu'taH.} "While one waits for the
judge, one sits." That's not canon, but is better use of {-lu'}
than as an equivalent to {vay'}. It could also be translated
as, "While the judge is waited for, one sits." Most likely, to
clean up the English, it would become, "While waiting for the
judge, one sits."
> Therefore, any transitive verb used
> with {-lu'} in the same fashion should be interpreted the same way.
"Therefore" is one of those dangerous words, building logical
constructions on premises that may well not be sound. Like
castles built on clouds. You have no basis for concluding that
transitive verbs with {-lu'} are translated exactly like
intransitive verbs, even if you WERE properly translating the
intransitive verbs, and it seems that you are perhaps not.
> Therefore
> {Soplu'} means "someone/etc. eats" and NOT necessarily "it is eaten,"
> otherwise I'd have to ask, where does the "it" come from in your
> interpretation?
This is an issue as yet unaddressed by Okrand. ~mark has voiced
concern about the handling of transitivity more than anyone
else. The language would certainly be more orderly if the
dictionary included references to transitivity, (like a NORMAL
dictionary). In this case, I would tend to translate {Soplu'}
by itself as, "One eats," but {qagh Soplu'} would be "The
serpent worms are eaten," or "One eats the serpent worms." This
makes more sense with a little context, like {*Quark* Qe'Daq
qagh Soplu'}.
> If {Xlu'} does indeed equal {X vay'}, then {Xqanglu'} must equal {Xqang
> vay'}, right? But according to you, this is not the case.
Well, according to me, your premise is false. {Xlu'} does not
precisely mean {X vay'}.
> It is a
> contradiction of sorts. I'm not bashing you, I just wish to point out your
> logical fallacy.
I'm not bashing you, I just wish to point out your logical
fallacy.
> I'm not dishing a blow to you either. You're not a really
> linguistic-minded person, but no one resents that. We all have our different
> interests, so don't get all in a frazzle over this. (Frazzle?)
Right. So, I'm not really a linguistic-minded person, but you
are, and therefore you have greater authority on these matters,
so you are right and I'm wrong, but you aren't bashing me and
you are not resenting it. wejpuH.
Hmmm. Should I say something crass like, "I'll put my B.A.
against your as-yet-unearned High School diploma any day."?
Naaaa.
Look. Neither of us are professional linguists. Both of us are
talented at this for no apparent good reason. Both of us have
embraced the Klingon language, for no apparent good reason. We
both have opinions and those opinions each deserve respect.
Limited respect, but respect.
I can only interpret this truely pathetic attempt to claim
more authority than me as the last, desperate tool of a person
who lacks any canon to back up his opinion. Hey. No bad
feelings. I'm a Klingon, remember? I know my honor well. And it
doesn't matter if I'm not a linguist if you have no basis for
your argument. And so far as I can see, you don't.
You are often very insightful. This specific episode is not one
of your better examples.
> The canonical example {HeghqangmoHlu'} does not *fully* support your belief
> about {-qang} and {-lu'} because it *might* be the {-moH} that's transfering
> the meaning of {-qang} to the object. It is not a definitive basis for your
> belief.
It IS the definitive basis for my belief because it is the only
example of {-qanglu'} that I have. My belief can be wrong. All
it takes is one statement from Okrand to make it so. Still, it
is my belief and it is based upon that example.
> >Of course, only Okrand knows for sure, and so far, he is not
> talking.
>
> Only because no one's asked him.
Only because no one can GET to him. His privacy is precious and
he is a very busy man.
> Guidooo o o o o o o o o o
> [echo]
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |