tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 09 06:36:28 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Qaghqoq



On Tue  8 Mar 94 23:06, Mark E. Shoulson writes:
 
>>But families *can* speak!  Though it may be the eldest who does the
>>speaking as a representative.  A familiy can also die if all
>>members die at the same time.  Why should there be no respect for the
>>family just because they are together as a group instead of
>>individuals?
 
>You're mixing your arguments here.  On the one hand you grant that you
> understand (I didn't say agree with) my contention that families are
> collectives and thus not speaking, sentient things.
 
Not quite.  I meant that there is usually a representative speaker,
but families can still speak together.  You say they have no
voice, I say they have several voices.
 
> But in the same
> breath you ask why there's no respect for them.  My point is there's no
> lack of respect in this case, any more than there's lack of respect for
> a book calling it "paqlIj".  The whole situation doesn't apply to
> families any more than it applies to a book.
 
But a book can't be broken down into individual speaking persons.
It's not the same thing.
 
> Now, to the first point...  Yes, a family can speak or hold opinions
> *through its spokesman/men*, but that's not the same thing.  When we
> talk about that in English, we're using the family as metonymy for the
> *members* (or leadership) of the family.  That's really what it is, a
> very pedestrian metaphor, just like talking about what Washington
> "says" about this or that crisis.  Cities don't speak either, but
> someone associated with the city, or the building when it's the White
> House that's speaking, can indeed cogitate.  The Klingon Defense Force
> can issue statements, but that doesn't make it one vast sentient
> creature.  It makes it an organization, composed of people who are.
> Would you call the UFP "DIvI'lI'"?  I wouldn't.
 
I wouldn't either, but those examples are much larger and more
abstract.  They also contain other, non-speaking elements.  But a
family is *only* made up of people, which is why I make the
distinction.
 
> I could also see a duality for collective nouns: treating them as
> sentient when the sentence does (i.e. when that metonymy is at work).
> So "my family is large" would be "tIn qorDu'wIj", but "my family
> believes the Emperor is a fool" might be "qoH ghaH ta''e' 'e' Har
> ?qorDu'wI'".  Hmmm, an interesting point I just realized on that last
> sentence.  In American English, we say "My family believes", with the
> singular form of the verb (and I did the same in the Klingon).  In
> British English (I'm led to understand), in many such situations they
> would "unwrap" the metonymy in the grammar, and say "my family
> believe", using the plural form of the verb (and the Klingon would have
> had "luHar").  That is, "family" is recognized as an abbreviation for
> "the members of my family".  There are at least some cases where the
 
The fact that you can say "My family believes" at all implies
to me that -wI' would be the appropriate suffix.  But appart
from that, in English, you can consider a family to be an "it",
(implied when you say "My family believes"), or "them", (implied
when you say "My family believe").  However, we don't know that
Klingon has this interchangeability.
 
Amy

[email protected]



Back to archive top level