tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 14 21:04:53 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Win 95 "Klingon-ized"
On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> I agree with your translation of "pa'", but not with your use. To me,
> "pa'" is more than just a noun meaning "a place over there." It's a fixed
> locative form, with a "-Daq" invisibly joined to it. That's why it never
> takes -Daq. I realize there's no canon that it *always* has the -Daq on
> it, but that's how it feels to me. And in any case, you're trying to use
> it locatively here. To use your phrasing, I'd say "*DaqDaq SoHtaHbogh
> vISovbe'", with the asterisk because I'm trying to make the -Daq-tagged
> word the head-noun of the relative clause, which I believe is not legal.
Actually, there is canon to support {-Daq} on the head noun of a relative
clause: 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq
'oHtaH. (DS9 trading card #99)
The problem is not whether it is legal, but rather the ambiguity such a
construction can create. In HolQeD 4.2, Okrand compared the construction
to the Marx Brothers joke, "I just shot an elephant in my pajamas...",
and said it is a joke which works in Klingon as well as in English
due to the dual meaning of the sentence. (It's equally ambiguous in both
languages.) He goes on to say that such ambiguity does exist in language,
it's not math.
You of all people should recall this, after all, you're the one who was
interviewing him in that HolQeD article.
> ~mark
yoDtargh