tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 19 12:00:09 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: law'/puS
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: law'/puS
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 15:00:05 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Marc Ruehlaender" at Jan 19, 95 3:49 am
First, I want to express how impressed I am at ANYBODY trying
to learn Klingon when English is not their primary language.
Learning an alien language from materials which are all in a
second foreign language... Yes. Very impressive.
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
> > > -chu' tells us how sure you are about what you say.
> >
> > Untrue...
> 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.
Please do not think that I somehow judge YOU when I seek to
correct what I consider to be an error in your interpretation
of {-chu'}. My interest in the banter among us as we work these
things out is that it ultimately polishes our mutual
understanding of a language we can then use to communicate with
each other.
TKD is often vague. Some of that was intentional. Okrand wanted
to leave himself enough wiggle room to bend his own rules if a
script required him to do so. Meanwhile, here, on this list, we
are seeking to nail down as much as possible so we have common
tools for communication.
> 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.)
I am almost positive that {-chu'} does indicate a quality of
execution of the main verb. I have not heard any significant
other opinion expressed here.
> > 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?
While I do not have my copy of HolQeD with me right now, two
issues back, Dr. Lawrence Schoen interviewed Marc Okrand
concerning {-ghach} and the comment was made that Okrand did
not intend for verbs with {-ghach} to have a verb prefix. I
don't remember the exact wording, but the two major points of
clarification were that {-ghach} added to a bare verb stem
(with no intervening suffixes) would be "highly marked"
(meaning that it would be understandable, but it would sound
weird to a Klingon, like referring to the act of jumping as
"jumption"), and that he had a very negative reaction to the
idea of adding {-ghach} to a verb with a prefix.
> > > 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."
Hmmm. This is an English useage I've never experienced. I would
not expect most Klingon speakers to understand it.
Basically, Klingon is an artificial langauge created by a
linguist who was trying to balance these priorities:
1. Make it as alien as possible while still being functional.
2. Make it work for the scripts for Star Trek movies.
3. Make it work for the masses who buy TKD.
I think of it less as an underdeveloped artificial language
than as an overdeveloped technical project full of humor and a
totally unjustifiable dedication on Okrand's part to make it
surprisingly expressive. The vocabulary may be considered
small, but for the movie scripts for which it was created, it
is huge. While it has weak spots, considering the original
function it was built for, it is amazingly rich and functional.
> 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 ?
Most of the time, I'd say yes. In general, the vocabulary is
for common English useage with additions for the Star Trek
environment.
> jImISqu'
> Marc 'Doychlangan'
tugh Hoch Dayaj.
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
> Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |