tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 22 11:01:53 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: {pong} revisited
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: {pong} revisited
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 14:01:09 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Craig Altenburg" at Sep 21, 94 7:29 pm
According to Craig Altenburg:
...
> What I was trying the do in my second attempt {jIhvaD Craig vIpong} was to
> use an indirect object i.e. "For me, I name Craig.". I guess I was
> stretching the indirect object construct too far.
In particular, {-vaD} means "for", but only in the sense of
"for the benefit of". In English, "for" can have many other
meanings.
> I would, however, like to explore some other alternatives.
>
> Your suggestion {charghwI' mupong tlhInganpu'} seems to cause "me" (implied
> object of the {mu-} prefix) to be equated with {charghwI'} the explicit
> direct-object.
Actually, the consensus here is that in Klingon, verbs have
objects, and while in some instances you can specify the
difference between a direct or an indirect object, you don't
need to. In this way, Klingon is much like English. "Give me
the gun." "Give the gun to me." In the second example, I show
you the difference between the direct and indirect object. In
the first example, I don't. You just know.
In Klingon, I can say, {qajatlh}, and even though the second
person object is really an INDIRECT object, it gets represented
by the prefix. There have been examples of a verb having both a
direct and an indirect object in Klingon with the prefix
representing one and the explicit noun indicating the other.
The only way you know what is going on is to note that the
person or number of the prefix does not match the explicit
object noun. Usually the expllicit noun is the direct object
and the prefix points to the indirect object. {HIch HInob}.
In "Klingons call me charghwI'," I'm less certain about what is
a direct object and what is an indirect object, but I know that
I can represent "me" with a prefix, but I can't represent
"charghwI'" with a prefix, so it comes out as {charghwI' mupong
tlhInganpu'}. It is not Okrand sanctioned, but it works as well
as anything else I have seen.
> Now, if there were a "I-me" prefix it would be easy; but,
> how about {Qaygh jIpongegh) for "I name myself Qaygh". I don't know if the
> {-egh} form can take an explicit direct-object -- TKD say you must use the
> "no object" prefixes, but doesn't say anything about an explicit object
> itself.
This has the same strength and weakness as my solution. The
prefix points to one object and the object itself represents
itself by position. Does this work? We don't know for sure.
> Other attempts along similar lines include:
>
> {Qaygh vIponglu} "One calls me Qaygh"
This also has the same strength and weakness. All of these
solutions may be valid or invalid. We don't know. Orkand needs
to make a statement about this. We are working on it.
> Well perhapes it's "Someone calls me Qaygh" which isn't quite right. But,
> although TDK translates {-lu} as "someone/something", it also states that
> {-lu} is used where the subject is "unknown, indefinite and/or general."
> The "general" use would seem to work -- like the English "they call me
> Qaygh" when "they" is used in the general (indefinite) way.
It could also be translated, "I am called Qaygh". It should be
noted that for all your efforts at making your name fit Klingon
phonology, the {ygh} never normally follow each other like
that. The only consonant known to preceed {gh} in a single
syllable is {r}. The only consonant known to follow {y} in a
single syllable is {'}. Meanwhile, a lot of names violate
Klingon phonology. Like Worf, for instance. If you like Qaygh,
then Qaygh it is.
> How about:
>
> {Qaygh mupong} "They call me Qaygh"
> Or does the thlIngan "they" always have to refer to some definite group.
The {-lu'} solution works better unless you want to specify a
subject.
> Or perhaps:
>
> {Qaygh mupong Hoch} "Everyone calls me Qaygh"
>
Again, same strengths, same weaknesses.
>
> On an similar subject you translated {jIhvaD Craig vIpong} as "For my
> benefit, I call Craig.". I would understand "I call Craig" to mean I
> request (demand?) Craig to come here -- another English meaning for "call",
> Is {pong} used in this sense too?
Probably untrue. Since the definition is {name, call}, I think
it is safe to consider that Okrand probably meant the more
exclusive overlapping meaning of the two English verbs instead
of the more inclusive, full range of both verbs.
> Qaygh
>
charghwI'