tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 22 18:44:09 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch, et al.
Terry has written a very interesting post. I wish to honor the
insight and thought that went into it, now that I have read it
a couple times to examine it from my own limited perspective.
Meanwhile, I'll warn ahead of time that I do not find it
convincing.
According to Terry Donnelly:
>
> Somebody writes (sorry; my stupid mail program went wild on me and
> I lost the header):
>
> >>> Hoch yuQmeyvam boghaj 'ach *Europa*
charghwI':
> >> We have come to the concensus on this list (I believe) that
> >> this is better stated as {yuQmeyvam Hoch},
~mark:
> >> That concensus is supported by canon. See the insult in PK:
> > "targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lIj Hoch yabDu' tIn puS" for "Your
> > targh has a bigger brain than all your ancestors put together."
Terry:
> I'm suspicious of this concensus. I've seen it both ways,
> {Hoch} + N and N + {Hoch}, with the former a little more common.
> The canonical example unfortunately is not conclusive: it could
> just as easily be parsed {nolIj (Hoch yabDu')}, "all the brains
> of your ancestors" or {(no'lIj Hoch) yabDu'}, "the brains of all
> your ancestors".
Since Okrand has described noun-noun constructions as being
parsed either as "A's B" or as "B of A", then I have to read
this one as either "The brains of all of your ancestors", or as
"Your ancestors' everybody's brains" or some combination of the
two. "All of your ancestors' brains", for example. None of
these yield "All of the brains of your ancestors."
> True, {Hoch yuQmey}, "the planets of
> everything", is an odd construction, but so is {yuQmey Hoch},
> "everything of the planets".
Methinks you choose the word "everything" instead of "all" here
just to make this good solution, which does not fit your
argument, sound worse. "All of the planets" does not sound as
awkward as "everything of the planets".
> I bring this up because of an issue raised in another posting,
> where charghwI' writes:
>
> > I don't see the void of a word for "inside" to be quite as
> > linguistically challenging as the void for the adjective or
> > question word "which", as in "Which one of the shiny helmets
> > should I choose?"
>
> The tape CK contains the phrase {nuq mI'lIj, tera'ngan}. It's
> translated on the tape as "What is your number, Terran?", but
> this can't be right.
>
> Captain Krankor, et al., have shown that {nuq} and {'Iv} are
> pronouns, in which case, I'd expect "What is your number?" to
> be rendered {mI'lIj nuq} or {mi'lIj 'oH nuq'e'}. The conclusion
> is that {nuq mI'lIj} is a noun-noun phrase.
Okrand is a little inconsistent about his use of nuq. I suspect
that if pinpointed on this example, he'd cop out and say it is
clipped. Your {mIlIj 'oH nuq'e'} could be just as well said
{nuq 'oH mIlIj'e'}, and since the point of the whole thing is
the NUMBER, it might be even preferable.
At any rate, it has long been my contention that the Klingon
language does not simply use pronouns for "to be", but instead
begins with the basic, "me, Tarzan" approach to statements of
being and has later embellished it with verbal suffixes on the
pronoun. Meanwhile, if you are comfortable with "me, Tarzan",
that's a short step to, "Jane, woman". No pronoun there. Just
two nouns. The implication is that they are IN APPOSITION,
MWAAAHAAAHAAHAAA!
tlhIngan jIH. tlhIngan Holtej. nuq mIlIj? Catch my drift? The
language is often expanded out to {nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'}, but it
doesn't NEED to be. This is my opinion, not the consensus of
the list, which will be undoubtably proven by the responses
this will certainly inspire.
> Moreover, as I noted in my letter in HolQeD 3:1, the N-N phrase,
> in addition to showing possession, is the regular way of rendering
> nouns as adjectivals (while not stated explicitly in TKD, this usage
> is followed by many writers, including Okrand himself).
While it is true that the possessor position modifies the
possessed position, much as an adjective does, I don't think it
has been proven that, aside from other considerations, any noun
you wish to use as an adjectival goes first. There are other
ways to get to the same result in the non-controversial cases
that won't get you there in the controversial cases.
> So the phrase {nuq mI'lIj} is not only a N-N phrase, but an
> *adjectival* N-N phrase. In other words, {nuq mI'lIj} = "Which
> number (is) yours/which (is) your number?" This is made even clearer
> by substituting the other interrogative pronoun: {'Iv paq Daghaj}
> = "Whose (lit. who's) book do you have?"
So how do you know it is NOT a simple apposition: "Your number,
What (is it)?" done in an order we'd consider backwards (as
many English speakers think MUCH Klingon tends to be).
I also don't feel like this use of {nuq} fulfills the function
of "which" that I've been looking for. If it did, in ST3, he
could have said, {nuq qama' DaHoH 'e' vISaHbe'} or {nuq qama'
DaHoHbogh vISaHbe'.} He didn't. Instead, he copped out and just
said, {jISaHbe'} because he didn't have anything that works for
"which of the prisoners". He dodged the point altogether.
> The internal logic of the N-N construction seems to be that *any* noun
> that modifies another noun precedes the noun it modifies. This applies
> to possession, description, even, I would submit, proper names and
> numbers. Consider the parallels:
>
> reghuluS taj "of the set of daggers, the one from Reghulus"
"a daggar of Reghulus"
> tlha taj "of the set of daggers, the one belonging to Klaa"
"Klaa's daggar"
> nagh taj "of the set of daggers, the one made of stone"
"a daggar of stone"
> wej taj "of the set of daggers, a group of three"
This is a different rule altogether. Numbers are not nouns, and
their position is declared by their function. {taj wej} means
"daggar number three" while {wej taj} means "three daggars".
This example says nothing about nouns or pronouns in a noun-noun
construction.
> Hoch taj "of the set of daggers, all of them"
"Everybody's daggar(s)", "all's daggar(s)" or "the daggar(s) of
everybody" or "the daggar(s) of all". Whatever the
interpretation, it isn't quite what you seem to be reaching
for. Instead, you seem to want "all of the daggars", which
should be {taj Hoch}.
In interpreting the relationship between the first and second
noun in a noun-noun construction, you have forgotten the
guidelines that Okrand is specific about: A's B or the B of A.
> with names:
>
> tlha Hod "of the set of captains, the one named Klaa"
I believe this is from ST5, which was apparently supposed to
present intentionally bad Klingon language, with the idea that
Klaa and his crew were Klingon hicks, scarcely literate,
running around shooting space garbage out of boredom. There are
many bad examples (like the use of {je} BETWEEN nouns instead
of following them) to show that these people do not speak the
more respected form of the language. Unfortunately, we don't
have other examples to difinitively tell us whether rank
preceeds or follows a name, using what I suppose might be
called "High Klingon". In fact, we have very few guidelines
about names in general, hence our confusion with the verb
{pong}. Similarly, your next example:
> logh Hop Hut tengchaH "of the set of space stations, the one
> named Deep Space Nine"
We just don't have rules about how names are presented. Again,
this could be apposition: "the space staion, Deep Space Nine"
in a sequence English speakers don't consider to be normal.
> Since the words {Hoch, latlh, nuq, 'Iv, vay'} are listed in TKD
> as nouns, if we want to use them to modify another noun, (as
> "all, another, which, whose, any"), it seems to me that we must
> place them *before* the modified noun.
I don't think we can do this while ignoring the guideline of
"A's B" or "B of A". You've managed this whole argument without
ever referring to it.
> >charghwI'
>
> -- Terry
>
>
> ===============================================
> : Terry Donnelly : bIvangtaHvIS :
> : Maplewood Pub. Lib. : yIyoHvIpQo' 'ej :
> : 7601 Manchester Ave. : yIDoHQo' - :
> : St. Louis, MO 63143 : Hoch yIn 'oH ngong'e':
> : (314) 781-2174 : R. W. Emerson :
> ===============================================
I STILL like your sig.
charghwI'