tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 06 10:38:39 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIlIH(')egh, etc.
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 18:28:42 -0800
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>I wrote:
>>A pronoun being used to mean "to be" does not mean "is the same as".
>Marks Mandel and Shoulson wrote:
>>jIQoch.
>I'll probably yield eventually, but I'll explain my position first.
>Every example I found in TKD about using a pronoun to mean "to be" was
>translated as "to be *a* [something]" or "to be *in/at* [somewhere]".
>Meanwhile, there is the verb {rap} "be the same" -- if {'oH} can be
>interpreted as "it is the same as" then why would {rap} exist? I have
>usually tried to be very limited in my interpretation of TKD's examples,
>and none of the "to be" examples imply that {valQIS jIH} is valid.
I'll think of an example; I know there's one out there.... :)
Here's a possible: SkyBox Card SP 1, reprinted in HolQeD 3:4, p. 10.
Describing the Klingon emblem, it says "tlhIngan wo' Degh 'oH Deghvam'e'."
If you use your method of understanding, that requires me to infer that
there must be several such emblems, and this is one, something that
certainly would have been spelled out more. The only other way out is that
it means it is one of a class that contains only one element... which
really doesn't differ in practice from saying "valQIS jIH": I am one of the
class of valQIS's... the only one, in fact.
>~mark writes:
>>I think it's pretty clear that pronouns-as-nouns are fairly normal copulae,
>>capable of indicating that X=Y. We have "SoH 'Iv" as canon for "who are
>>you"; "who" and "you" are plainly in appostion here, and whichever one is
>>acting as the verb here it's behaving just as Mark claims.
>I didn't find {SoH 'Iv} in TKD; where does it come from? It does rather
>clearly oppose my position. I might try to weasel out with a complaint
>about {'Iv} being a question word and not a "regular" pronoun, but that
>doesn't seem worth the effort. Still, I don't think this implies that
>a name can be used as the object of a pronoun used as a verb.
"SoH 'Iv" is in Conversational Klingon. Krankor also wrote an article
about why it's that way and not "'Iv SoH."
>> "jIH" *does*
>>mean "I am the same as" when used as a verb: "tlhIngan jIH" is "I
>>am-the-same-as a Klingon". Where did you see mention of membership in a
>>group there?
>That's the meaning I have inferred from the "I am a [something]" pattern.
Aha... Therein lies your problem. There's no "class membership" implied in
the pronoun. The class membership is implied in the *noun* "tlhIngan"
which means "one or several members of the class of Klingons." If
pronoun-use were restricted by something so basic yet abstract as
class-membership, Okrand would surely have said something. That's
something awfully abstract to expect us to infer on our own. Rather, the
class-membership is in the "a Klingon" part. So we have "jIH" meaning "the
speaker equals" and "tlhIngan" means "one or more members of the class of
Klingons." The "classness" is nowhere in "jIH", it's in "tlhIngan", giving
us "I=a Klingon".
>>"tlhIngan" here means "a Klingon" (which Klingon? Well, the
>>one which I am). It could also mean "I am the Klingon" (say, the one whom
>>you saw your lady with last night), depending on the context.
>I don't think context would let me read {tlhIngan jIH} as "I am the Klingon".
>I'd be more comfortable with {tlhInganvetlh jIH} "I am that Klingon" -- which
>is another example like {HoDDaj jIH} where the object is a unique entity, and
>my argument gets very weak trying to deal with these.
Admittedly, I'd almost always use "tlhInganvetlh jIH" when there was a
specific Klingon; but I could imagine a situation where the context was
very clear that I meant a specific one without using a specifier, since
after all, Klingon does not distinguish "a" from "the."
>>I see *no* support for forbidding "jejQIb jIH" as an introduction. I find
>>it natural and simple, and at least as easy as "jejQIb 'oH pongwIj'e'".
>I, of course, cannot forbid anything. However, I'd like to keep the "to be"
>meanings of pronouns as strictly limited as possible -- it's one of the ways
>that Klingon differs markedly from English. I have exactly the same concern
>with {jejQIb 'oH pongwIj'e'} as I have with {jejQIb jIH} -- it expands what
>{jIH} and {'oH} can mean beyond the examples given in TKD. I think it would
>be better as {pongwIj 'oH jejQIb'e'}, but again it's hard to claim that my
>interpretation of "member of a group" applies to a unique item.
Then how would you give a name? "mupong <jejQIb>" perhaps?
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj