tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 15 05:11:35 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
this'n'that
- From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
- Subject: this'n'that
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:13:02 -0700
Guidovo':
>The odd thing about Nick's Klingon is that it is so un-Anglicized that it
>comes close to gibberish. Sometimes I read one of his Sonnets and think "What
>does this mean?? These words have nothing to do with each other." Still, it's
>true that Shakespeare's English is chock-full of idioms. So, having trouble
>with Nick's Klingon is anything but a sign of less than decent reading
>skills. If anything, it should not be considered a mark against your
>abilities. If you want to know anything about your reading abilities, try
>conversing with charghwI' or ~mark. Krankor's not too bad, but I find his
>Klingon resembling English too closely.
Well, harumph! Seriously, though, if you find me resembling English
too closely, I wish you'd point it out. This is an area I'm trying
to work more on. I don't think I do that badly, but I'm sure I have
blind spots like most people. So, if you can point to specific
things, I'd appreciate it if you would. Mind you, that doesn't
guarantee I'll *agree* with the criticism-- but I suspect I often
will.
charghwI'vo':
> I remember waaaay back when I thought {bang} could be used as a verb. It
>is refreshing to see someone else make that error now. It makes me nostalgic.
>There is no explicit verb for "love" in Klingon. Our distinguished Captain
>chooses {muSHa'}. My own preference is to look at the context, given that I
>believe the English usage of "love" has become so vague as to be meaningless
>without context. Depending on what I sense to be the meaning in a specific
>setting, I'll use {muSHa', parHa'qu', neH, neHnIS, nga', SaHqu'} and probably
>other words if a context doesn't fit one of these very well.
Well, the fact that I recommend muSHa' does not in any way mean I
claim it should be used in all cases where English uses "love".
Obviously, one should look at context to figure out what one really
means. Although I'll readily admit that charghwI' is among the very
best at doing this.
'ej charghwI'vo' je:
>chang chang... ch ch chang, chang chang... ch ch chang
>chang chang... ch ch chang, chang chang... ch ch chang
>
>Doch taybe'... ch ch chang, chang chang...
>bom tIqwIj 'e' DaqaSmoH... ch ch chang, chang chang...
>Hoch Da"groovy"moH... ch ch chang, chang chang... ch ch chang
>Ha', Doch taybe'... ch ch chang, chang chang... ch ch chang
>
>chang...
>
>chang chang chang chang
>
>Doch taybe'
>qaneH 'e' vIQub
>
>chang chang chang chang
>
>'ach 'e' vISovchu' vIneH
>
>chang chang chang chang
>
>chovIHmoH...
>
>chang chang... ch ch chang, chang chang... ch ch chang
>chang chang... ch ch chang, chang chang... ch ch chang...
qamuS. reH bomvam vIpar, 'ach jabbI'IDlIjmo' qaStaHvIS ram Hoch
yabwIjDaq SaHbej. baQa'!
DrujIvvo':
>1. 'IwlIj DalarghlaHbe'.
>2. gharwI' jat; nuch tIq
>3. tIqlIjDaq DuQbogh taj 'e' Danej.
>4. lamDaq QuchlIj DaHabchoHta'.
>5. nISaQmoH be'pu' qan lutmey.
>Well, Krankor? How'd I do? (Acck! Put that sign DOWN!)
Well, despite the fact that people are supposed to let the
grammarians do corrections, and, moreover, the fact that this one
*specifically* directed the corrections to me, by name, charghwI'
apparantly felt that the world could not survive another day if he
did not immediately fix the few errors here. Sigh.
Well, for the most part, his corrections are at least on the mark.
>> 3. tIqlIjDaq DuQbogh taj 'e' Danej.
>
> This should probably be {tIqlIjDaq DuQ taj 'e' Danej} [You seek that a
>dagger stabs the place occupied by your heart]. What you have written is
>grammatically missing a verb, since the {'e'} expects a complete sentence
>preceeding it and the {-bogh} makes the only preceeding verb a dependent
>clause. It means something like [You seek that a dagger which stabs at your
>heart....] Can you feel what is missing here? If you remove the "which" it is
>more complete.
I suspect that just losing the 'e' would give her what she wants.
However, charghwI's version, losing the -bogh, also works.
> You could probably lose the {-Daq} here, too. The dagger stabs the
>heart, right? {tIqlIj DuQ taj 'e' Danej}. [You seek that a dagger stabs your
>heart.] DaparHa''a'?
It's a shade of meaning thing. stabs the heart vs. stabs at the
heart. Really up to her, based on how she feels the meaning.
>> 4. lamDaq QuchlIj DaHabchoHta'.
>>
>> Literally: You have smoothed your forehead in the dirt. This accuses
>> someone of excessive servility, putting their heads in the dirt so much
>> they have become smooth. This has been known to start bar-clearing brawls
>> in a matter of seconds.
>
> That #4 is my favorite. Except that {Hab} is intransitive, being used as
>if transitive. Try {DaHabchoHmoHpu'}. I took the liberty of assuming the act
>of making smooth was not intentional.
My favourite, too. My take was that the choH was simply in error,
and wanted to be -moH. I don't think the -choH makes much semantic
sense here. However, I think charghwI' is *grossly* in error for
taking liberties with the -ta' suffix. The intentionality is what
makes the insult!
Anyway, I really like these a LOT. Now let's see if I can remember
them well enough to use them {{:-)
qorvo':
> De'wI' Hol bojatlh 'e' yImev qoj tlhIngan Hol bojatlh
>
>
> Qapla'
> -qor
SuvwI'na'! rurchuqlaw' yabDu'maj. mubelqu' quvna'lIj! 'Iw
bIQtIqDaq Dalengjaj!
charghwI'vo' je:
> I've concluded that "be sitting" is a quality or state of being.
>"Sit" is NOT a quality or state of being. "ba'" means "sit". It does NOT
>mean "be sitting" [TKD, page 80]. It is an action. Every example
>in 4.4 involves a verb whose English definition includes the word "be".
>There are enough words in TKD with "be" in their definition to recognize the
>pattern that Okrand intended THESE words and ONLY these verbs to be used
>adjectivally.
> This is not a position I have consistently held in the past,
>but rereading 4.4, I must conclude that only verbs which include "be"
>in their English definitions can be used adjectivally. Just because it
>would be convenient for "ba'" to mean "be sitting" instead of "sit" if
>we choose to place it after a noun, that does not make it so.
Yep. Well spoken. I've been meaning to say something about that
myself.
> Furthermore, after rereading TKD 3.2.2, I think the arguement is weak
>that these adjectival verbs could be nominalized with the {-wI} suffix.
>One may be a {ba'wI'} because one "does" sit, but one cannot be a {tInwI'}
>because being big is not something one "does". It is something one "is".
Here I disagree. To say it is something someone "is" misses the
boat, because the "is"ness is already baked into the meaning of the
verb. If ba' means "He sits" and ba'wI' is "one who sits", and tIn
means "He is big", then it completely follows that tInwI' is "one
who is big".
> Basically, I've come to believe that these "be" verbs are actually
>adjectives that can be used as verbs, given that Okrand was trying to
>come up with a language that did not, at a root level, include the verb
>"to be" and this was a device toward that end. The verb "to be" connects
>nouns to other nouns, or it connects nouns to adjectives, so if we cover
>one with pronouns and cover the other with adjectival verbs, we don't need
>"to be". Trying to put an alien spin on the idea that adjectives which
>follow nouns can be used as verbs if they preceed nouns, he turns it around
>and says that they are REALLY just VERBS and if you want to use them
>ADJECTIVALLY, then put them AFTER the nouns (so they don't get mistaken
>for verbs being used adjectivally).
Yeah, that's another perspective to view it from.
> Given this perspective, I really think that the "be" verbs are in
>an entirely different class from other verbs. I was tempted at one point
>to believe that some verbs promised to waffle back and forth across
>the line of action versus stative, like "vIH", which means
>"move, be in motion". The former sounds active. The latter sounds stative.
>Looking closer, I see that he instead intended to indicate that the verb is
>the intransitive version of "move" instead of the transitive one. The second
>definition is not so much an alternate definition as a clarification
>to disambiguate an ambiguous English verb. There is no English-to-Klingon
>entry for "be in motion" or "in motion". Instead, the English entry for
>"move" reads "move, be in motion" to remind you not to use it in the
>transitive sense. This is a more useful kind of verb, since you can
>always make it transitive with {-moH}.
Yep, again agreement. Gee it's nice when I don't have to say a word
and people come around to my way of thinking. {{:-) Seriously, this
whole issue is one that seems to require a long journey. You are
the third person I know of (including myself, by the way) who has
changed opinion on this topic after reflection and experience. I
originally balked at the idea that the adjectival verbs would be a
special class, because it seemed inelegant, but after a while I had
to admit it was so.
At this point, I'm still open to the possibility that there may
exist members of this class that don't actually have "be" in their
definition. But the burden of proof lies with those who claim for
them. I remain unconvinced that ba' or tlha' cut it.
> I'm sure this opinion is likely to be controversial, but then, what
>else is this list for if not for exploring the controversial?
Actually, it's primarily as a forum for learning and practicing the
language. Exploring the controversial is a secondary, though valid
persuit. Well, you asked. {{:-)
> BTW, does anybody know what a {mughato'} is? It was one of those words
>in TKD that stumped me, until I checked out "Worlds of the Federation" by
>Shane Johnson. This is one VERY obscure reference, given that the book is
>not indexed, except by planet name, and has no meaningful table of contents
>and there is no reference to anything about mugatos that I can find in
>the Star Trek Chronology or the Star Trek Companion, so apparently these
>creatures were never used in a script for either TNG or TOS.
It showed up in a rather forgettable strek episode. Okrand
deliberately tried to include Klingon-relevant things in the
dictionary, including going back to the old series for things, and
the episode in question did happen to include Klingons. Alak, I
can't recall the name of the episode, but it was the one where the
Klingons were supplying rifles to the primitive people on order to
support one side in their war. In the end, Kirk must violate the
"Prime Directive"qoq and give guns to the other side to even the
balance of power.
> Also {SermanyuQ} apparently refers to a place referred to in a
>conversation between Spock and Checkov in "Trouble with Tribbles".
>"Brittish astronomer John Burke of the Royal Academy maps the area of space
>including Sherman's Planet. This region is later the subject of a
>territorial dispute between the Federation and the Klingon empire."
>Again, that's not in any index, but check out 2067 in the Cronology...
>I accidentally found that while looking for mugatos...
It shows up as more than just conversation between Spock and Checkov
in that episode, it is THE maguffin of that particular show. The
gig is that both the Klingons and the Fed-heads are trying to
develop, and thereby control Sherman's Planet-- that's what the
quadrotriticale (loSpev) is for (which is another baffling TKD
reference if you don't know the episode)
Well, this was long, but probably not more so than numerous separate
posts.
--Krankor