tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 06 00:09:07 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Blood of the vanquished
Hu'tegh! nuq ja' R.B Franklin jay'?
[R. B. Franklin calls me Mr Nicholas.]
Please, Mr Franklin. No need for that. :)
[yoDtargh points out that neither {jagh Dajeghpu'bogh HuH} nor {jagh
lujeghlu'ta'bogh HuH} are ambiguous.]
He's right, of course. I think what I actually had in mind was the N-N
containing a rel. clause in the DSN9 card in HolQeD 3:2, but having a second
look at that, -lu' makes it unambiguous too.
Argh. I would still contend that we would find such a construction harder
to process, and would tend to avoid it anyway. It is certainly *potentially*
ambiguous, if you have a 3rd person subject and object, and no -lu'. While
the accusation I've made of Okrand won't stick, I think the point still holds
that we, by extensively using Klingon, have intuitions about what is easily
understood Klingon --- which Okrand may not.
=jagh lucharghlu'ta'bogh HuH ghopDu'lIj lungaSjaj!
This transcription is what appears in HolQeD 2:4. If you don't get HolQeD,
do!
=If I wanted to say, "the bile that defeated the enemy", would I use:
={jagh jeyta'bogh HuH}; and
=If I wanted to say, "the enemy which defeated the bile", would I use:
={HuH jeyta'bogh jagh}?
You can. But if you want to say "the bile that was defeated by the enemy?"
(The convention launched by Krankor is to topicalise the relative clause head:
jagh'e'... / HuH'e'...) And what about "the brother of the guard defeated by
the prisoner?" 'avwI' jeybogh qama' loDnI''e'? 'avwI' jeybogh qama''e' loDnI'?
'avwI' jeybogh qama' loDnI'? Each of these have problems. It seems to me that,
in general, Klingonists would simply avoid such complex N-Ns as more
trouble than they're worth (as I've said, they're extraordinarily rare
on the list.)
=I also didn't understand Mr. Nicholas's statements about topic
=constructions. In what context would {verengan'e' pu' vIngev} replace
={verenganvaD pu' vIngev}?
In exactly the same contexts where verengan'e' vIHoH would replace verengan
vIHoH. *If* verengan'e' pu' vIngev is acceptable. I'll leave it to charghwI'
(as BG, and person who should be answering these questions :-) to talk more
about Klingon topicalisations, though I will point out again that what has
happened in Klingon topicalisation seems to have happened mainly because
most Klingonists don't know anything about topicalisation apart from what
TKD says --- and TKD doesn't say much. (A Teach Yourself Japanese book
should have enough in it for anyone out there to make sense of what Okrand
means by topicalisation.)
>From charghwI'
=[comments about Hamlet establishing grammatical usage]
=> This is why it is so important for people to comment on the usage in these
=> works while they still can, before they're hard copy.
=Well, for all his positive traits, Guido, for one, does not
=seem to accept editorial comment.
Um, I don't think this is the appropriate forum to discuss this, though I'll
admit I'm surprised to hear this. I am quite willing, if you, Guido, and
Mark are, to continue this in private email. The line I would take is that,
while we can't afford to get too bogged down, and while latitude must be
allowed for style, Guido and I must accept advice where there are clear
grammatical errors or lexical misusages. If it is purely a matter of style,
Guido is within his rights to naysay, I suppose, though not to do so out
of hand, even if he admits the form is superior: the primary aim, despite
all I've said about not suffocating indivuality, is to produce not individual
Klingon, but good, readable Klingon. (Which means you'll no doubt have a
lot to say about my work! :-) ).
I think it would be highly regrettable if you weren't involved. At the same
time, I think I can see where Guido's coming from (though I'd fain hear his
side of the story first.) I suggest we continue this in private email; I'm
sure we can sort matters out. (And of course, we have to do so in time for
Christmas!)
Mr Nicholas.
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nick Nicholas. Linguistics, University of Melbourne. [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
AND MOVING REAL SOON NOW TO: [email protected]