tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 19 00:35:37 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: law'/puS
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: law'/puS
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 9:27:53 MEZ
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "William H. Martin" at Jan 18, 95 1:46 pm
- Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
> > -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.
>
> > 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.
>
Now, I don't have any tapes, nor am I a member of the KLI (yet),
and I do have problems with Okrands explanations. That is why
I relied on his saying these suffixes show how sure the
speaker is about what's being said. That's why I interpreted
the examples exactly the way you say above.
So if I understand you right, then -chu' is something totally
different. It rather modifies the way the action is performed,
like the English seems to suggest. (I'm trying to translate
my TKD into German to make learning easier, but with such
omissions I'm really lost.)
> verbs with {-ghach} generally don't have prefixes.
(sorry I,m a physicist) what do you mean by "generally"?
Are there "special" cases where both can occur, prefix
and -ghach?
And anyway, TKD doesn't mention this, so why is it?
> > 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.
>
That's exactly my point: I DONT want to say "speak TO the
passing ship". My dictionary lists the above use of "speak"
as a nautical expression for "exchanging information by
waving flags etc."
But in general, how close can I take the coincidence of
Klingon words with a given translation? Can I use most verbs
in any sense one could use the English ?
jImISqu'
Marc 'Doychlangan'
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------