tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 18 03:31:52 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
batch
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: batch
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 16:29:35 EST
charghwI'vo'
Please pardon the batch responses here, but my schedule is
intensifying.
[marqem writes:]
>> For some uses of the English verb "to mean" we can use jatlhlu':
>> 1. ghot nuv jatlhlu'
>> literally, 'one says nuv [as] ghot'.
[charghwI' writes:]
> Interesting. I've never seen this construction before. Could you point
>it out to me in canon? I have been tempted to try it myself, but I could not
>justify the two nouns without a conjuction. It looks more like a noun-noun
>conjuction, in which case it becomes "The {ghot}'s {nuv} is spoken." I don't
>think that is your intent.
[Krankor writes:]
I like the basic approach alot. I think, though, that I would do it
as: "ghot"vaD "nuv" jatlhlu'. As was brought up in a later post,
the punctuation helps. I'm going to start using jatlhlu' like this.
[charghwI' writes:]
I still don't see the justification for it. Only one of the two nouns
has a grammatical reason for being in this sentence, unless this is a
noun-noun construction, which it isn't.
[marqem writes:]
>> Compare such sentences as
>> 2. Qanqor Hodma' ponglu'
>> literally, 'one calls our captain Krankor', which I believe is an
>> accepted structure. Sentence 1 is appropriate where we would say
>> in English "nuv means ghot". The appropriateness of the
>> construction is even more evident when discussing translation:
[charghwI' writes:]
> Same problem. "Our captain of Krankor is called." I have not really
>resolved this one very well yet.
[Krankor writes:]
This one surfaces from time to time. Yeah, you *could* interpret it
that way, but the intended parse is indeed legal. I refer you to
6.1, p 60: "Any noun indicating something other than subject or
object comes first, before the object noun. Such nouns *usually*
end in a Type 5 noun suffix..." (emphasis added). Usually, but not
always. Here the name, Qanqor, is this third noun. This is the
unusual case where it really doesn't seem to need any kind of type 5
suffix. It's not a locative, or an indirect object, or anything
like that, it's just another noun besides the subject and object,
which the above-quoted rule covers.
--Krankor
[charghwI' writes:]
Sorry, my captain, but I cannot agree that this is what Okrand
had in mind when he wrote 6.1. The exceptions to the Type 5 suffixed
nouns are things like time references, like {wa'Hu'} or other such
nouns being used adverbially. I don't think this makes a justifiable
place to put any old noun you like here just because you don't have
some other justifiable place to put it. I think you are abusing this
rule. It comes down to Okrand failing to adress the issue of talking
about words and names themselves instead of talking about the objects
referred to by the words and names. "Referent" is the term, and Okrand
never mentions them.
I do not believe this is a problem that can be so casually solved.
Either Okrand has to give us more information, or we have to make
awkward recastings of the sentence, or we have to just avoid this
the same way we have to avoid fractions.
*************************
[Qanqor writes of the song charghwI' translated:]
Dun! pov! (bomvam vIparHa'ba' {{:-)
I would, however, question the two ma- prefixes in the bridge.
[charghwI' responds:]
You are right. I {ma-}ed which I should have {mu-}ed.
[Qanqor continues:]
I also would've done the last line of the bridge as:
jIjatlhHa'pu' 'ej DaH wa'Hu' vIneHqu'
[charghwI' responds:]
Yes. I think either your way or my way works, but yours
is more concise and elegant.
[Qanqor continues:]
'IHqu' bomghachlIj. DaH naDev chuS'ughwIj vIghajbe'mo' jIpay. {{:-)
--Qanqor
[charghwI' responds:]
yIpaybe'. ghogh tlhejlaHbe' chuS'ugh 'e' Sov Hoch. ghogh chargh chuS'ugh.
[Amy West writes about the same song:]
Re: bomvetlh yIpong
Name that tune!
>pay' Hu' bIDwIj naQ law DaH HochwIj naQ puS
suddenly, days ago my half is fuller than now my everything
>DungwIjDaq HuStaH QIb
above me hangs a shadow
>wa'Hu' vIvoqtaH
I am trusting yesterday
[or: I have faith in yesterday.]
>wa'Hu' bangwI'vaD jIHvaD je ngeD Qujmey
yesterday, for my love and for me, games are easy
[I would tend to say "...games WERE easy," given the time reference.]
>DaH jISo'meH pa' vIneH
now, I want a room for me to hide.
>wa'Hu' vIvoqtaH
I am trusting yesterday
>qatlh maDoHnIS bangwI' 'e' vISovbe
why I don't know that my love we need to back away from
[My mistake. This should have been {qatlh muDoHnIS bangwI' 'e' vISovbe'}
which would have meant, "I don't know why my love needed to get away
from me." Sorry. BTW, I enjoyed the Klingon-like phrasing of the original
English: Why she had to go {'e'} I don't know...]
>maja'pu'Qo'
we didn't tell
[And this should have been {muja'pu'Qo'} "She would not tell me."]
>jIjatlhtaHvIS jIQagh 'ej DaH wa'Hu' vIneHqu'
while I'm speaking, I err and now I really want yesterday
[Yes, though Qanqor's suggestion is an excellent replacement.
It might be literally translated as "I misspoke and now..."]
>wa'Hu' Hopqu'law' SengmeywIj Hoch
yesterday, all my troubles apparently really far away
[It sounds nicer if you toss a "were" after "troubles".]
>DaH ratlhtaHmeH naDev pawlaw' bIH
now, they apparently arrive here for remaining
[My intent was for the {-taH} to suggest perpetuity.]
>'ach wa'Hu' vIvoqtaH
But yesterday I am trusting
[The {vI-} lets you know there's an object, so you take "yesterday" as
the object, instead of as a time stamp. "But I have faith in yesterday."]
>HIja' wa'Hu' vIvoqtaH
yes, yesterday I am trusting
[Again, yesterday is the object, not a time stamp.]
>[charghwI'vo' latlh]
How'd I do? :-)
[email protected]
[majQa'. Qapla' Dachavta'.]
************************************
[Kevin writes:]
...
I am really uncomfortable with using question words in this way. It
definitely goes against the canon. I think, however, that we have another
way out, namely rewording sentences. I do not know if rewording would work
in all instances, but in this case it does. How about
jatlh 'e' mevnISDI', 'oH Sov SuvwI'
How does this sound?
Qapla'
Kevin
[charghwI' offers:]
Or how about even:
jatlhbe'meH poH lugh Sov SuvwI'na'
charghwI'