tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 18 10:45:24 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: law'/puS
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: law'/puS
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 13:45:20 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Marc Ruehlaender" at Jan 12, 95 3:51 am
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
> charghwI' jabbI'IDvam vIHevpu':
> >
> > In other words {loDpu' tIn law' be'pu' tIn puS} (whether
> > or not you accept the generality) literally means, "Many big
> > men, few big women." If that carries across the meaning of "Men
> > are bigger than women," then it gives a lot more clarity to how
> > far we can stretch this construction (which isn't very far).
> >
> I'm aware that Klingon doesn't seem to have infinitives
> (however, as Guido pointed out in an other post, we have
> Dochvetlh DIlmeH for "in order to pay for that")
> but is the way you see it the only possible one
> (as far as canonical support goes)?
I'm open to other suggestions.
> If I take the liberty to consider Q to be an infinitive,
> I see the comparative expression as two noun-'noun'-constructions:
> "the much bigness" of men, "the less bigness" of women.
> How do you think about this?
No. Guido's suggestion was that verbs with {-meH} are
infinitive in the sense that they do not need to have a subject
or object assigned to them (though they can). That is not the
same thing as saying that such an infinitive can behave
grammatically as a noun. I think that is too much of a liberty.
I see no justification for interpreting tIn as "bigness" and
similarly interpreting anything in the Q position as a noun in
a law'/puS construction. Nothing near this.
It could be a verb, though it is in a weird position as such,
or it could be an adjectival, for which it is perfectly
positioned, but nothing suggests that it then becomes a noun.
> > Krankor challenges us to figure out how to say, "I speak
> > Klingon better than you." I recommend that tools other than
> > {law'/puS} can handle that without a great deal of difficulty,
> > resulting in an even more accurate description than we have
> > from the original English, choosing among:
> >
> > tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhchu' 'ach Dajatlhchu'be'.
> -chu' tells us how sure you are about what you say.
Untrue. It is easy to make the error of considering {-chu'},
{-bej} and {-law'} to be three points along a linear continuum
of degree of certainty, but there is a qualitative difference
between {-chu'} and {-bej}. Note the example:
baHchu' -- He/she fired (the torpedo) perfectly.
This is not a simple, "Damn, she sure did fire that torpedo! I
saw it with my own eyes!" For that, baHbej could have sufficed
quite nicely. No. {-chu'} speaks not only to the certainty of
the occurance of the action of the verb, but to the quality of
that action being executed clearly or perfectly. It is not the
case that it simply means you are clearly or perfectly certain
that the action took place.
> If that's what you mean, (i.e. you obviously speak
> Klingon, but you're not so sure about what I speak)
> then it surely is different from the original meaning.
That is not at all what I meant. I meant that I speak Klingon
clearly, while you do not.
> > tlhIngan Hol vIghojta' 'ach DaghojlI'.
> I don't think it's wise to say vIghojta'...
> It's too easily falsified unless you're Okrand...
I'm not even sure its all that wise for Okrand. He is quite
humble in his introductory remarks and in the few conversations
I've witnessed. At any rate, I think it is acceptable for one
who is accomplished in the use of the language to say
vIghojta'. One can continue to study after one has accomplished
studying, much as one can say vISopta'.
> > tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhbej 'ach Dajatlhlaw' neH.
> again, -bej tells us, you're certain about what you say,
> whereas the second part would give a nice insult }}|-{
While what you say is true, you seem to try to read something
into it which may not be as significant as you think. "I
definitely speak Klingon, but you merely apparently speak it."
> > loQ tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaH 'ach wej DajatlhlaH.
> to me, you put too much emphasise on the continuous aspect
> in this statement; I don't think you need -laH here.
> (By the way this sounds way too humble to be
> the warrior's tongue...:)
Check again. {-laH} is not {-taH}.
> > How many times have people faced, "You are good at
> > speaking Klingon," and tried to twist it into {tlhIngan Hol
> > jatlhwI' QaQ SoH} instead of the simpler {tlhIngan Hol
> > Dajatlhchu'}?
> again my resentment against this use of type 6 suffixes
> (at least from the examples in 4.2.6, if there is more
> canon to support your understanding, I apologize, but would
> like to see it - there's much on can overlook in TKD...:-)
Please look again. The examples are right where you site. I'd
appreciate it if you could find an example that posits your
interpretation of {-chu'}. I don't see one in TKD.
> > charghwI'
>
> By the way, I think the A and B parts of the comparative
> can be filled by sentences, don't they? (If Okrand meant
> (simple) "nouns", why did he write "things"?)
>
> so how do you like
>
> jatlhmeH tlhingan Hol vIlo' QaQ law' Dalo' QaQ puS.
vIparqu'. Krankor tried to convert sentences into nouns via
{-ghach} on the verb so that he could do this in an article he
wrote for HolQeD a while back. It was inventive and his drive
to create this construction was an understandable expansion to
the law'/puS construction, but Okrand's eventual pronouncement
on {-ghach} led Krankor to believe that this was no longer an
acceptable presumtion. law'/puS was built to compare nouns.
Deal with it.
> (I think Guido uses something similar in his post)
> If you think A and B can be nouns only, then how does
> -ghach help with verbs which require an object?
It doesn't. verbs with {-ghach} generally don't have prefixes.
That's the twist that thwarted Krankor's attempt to expand
law'/puS.
> Do you consider tlhingan Hol vIlo'ghach one noun?
No. Basically, {vI-} and {-ghach} do not simultaneously belong
on the same verb root.
> If you think it's a noun-noun-construction, why
> not allow complete sentences?
Hello? A noun plus an illegal word do not make a noun-noun
construction.
> Where do you dra the line?
Before you do.
> well...
> and now for something completely different..
>
> most of you use jatlh exactly like the english speak.
>
> My dictionary lists about eight different uses of
> to speak! Which ones do you believe can be expressed
> by jatlh, which ones can't, and why do you think so?
Klingon has significantly fewer verbs of speaking than English,
so it doesn't seem like a huge stretch to imagine that the
verbs of speaking that exist in Klingon stretch at least as far
as those of English. Each probably covers more ground, rather
than less.
> e.g. can you say
> juStaHbogh Duj yIjatlh! speak the passing ship!
Note that in the addendum, jatlh is also listed as "say". I
would interpret your sentence to mean:
Say, "the passing ship".
In other words, I am giving you a direct quote which I want you
to repeat after me. It might be that you mean speak TO the
passing ship, but there are clearer ways to express that.
> thank you for your time
>
> Marc 'Doychlangan'
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
> Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |