tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 17 13:47:38 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Q
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Q
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 16:47:05 -0500
- Encoding: 119 TEXT
This replies to several posts on this topic.
----------
From: Garrett Michael Hayes[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 1995 6:00 PM
To: William H. Martin
Subject: Re: Q
On 15 Nov 95 at 14:04, William H. Martin wrote:
> According to Mark E. Shoulson:
> >
> > ... I don't like pIqaD all that much.
> >
> > ~mark
>
> pIqaD qaq law' *Kirk* qaq puS.
A beginner's attempt at translation -- are you saying something along
the lines of "I prefer many Picards (for pIqaD) and few Kirks"?
No. This is the classic {law'/puS} comparative structure. It literally
means, "pIQaD (pun on Pickard) is more preferable than Kirk." It is the way
to say, "Pickard is preferable to Kirk," based upon a canon statement from
the movie "Undiscovered Country" (ST6), where the line was something about
dying on our feet is preferable to living on our knees."
'etlhqenwI'
----------
From: Mark J. Reed[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 1995 9:01 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Q
``The pIqaD is more preferable than Kirk''? Hmmm. The English gloss,
at least, is patently redundant. Do we have any canon evidence of 'qaq'
being
used this way?
Yes. Undiscovered Country. See above.
The definition in TKD ("be preferable") seems inherently
comparative, not requiring the law'/puS construction.
Well, by canon example, Okrand seems to think otherwise.
There's no
indication of how to express the thing to which the subject is preferable,
but it seems a logical role to be filled by the object: {pIqaD qaq *Kirk*}.
While many Klingonists like this approach, we don't have any canon to back
it up. Zero. Zip. Zed. pagh.
cha' DeQwIj.
-marqoS
--
----------
From: michiel uitdehaag[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 1995 9:27 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Q
{pIqad qaq *Kirk*} means, IHMO, that Kirk is preferable {pIqad}. Take that
in a
more comprehensible form and I get: Kirk looks a bit like {pIqad}. What I
gather from the various discussions, I'd think Kirk would not be pleased
with
this. *grin* {{:)
Moreover, the sentence is incorrect. I think you should use {qaq} when
some-one
asks you:'What do you like, {pIqad} or Kirk'. Then you'd answer:'{pIqad} is
preferred'. Apparently {qaq} doesn't (easily (yes this is a disclaimer))
take
an object.
Same with for instance {chuv}/'be left over'. I could say: {jIchuv}/ I am
left
over. I couldn't say: {*Kirk* vIchuv}/ I am left over Kirk (????) This
completely goes beyond the meaning of the verb {chuv} IMHO.
jejQIb
jIQochbe'.
----------
From: Mark J. Reed[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 1995 10:05 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Q
The fact that "be preferable" in English doesn't take an object is not
evidence that {qaq} cannot take an object in Klingon. Many languages use
transitive verbs to express relationships for which English uses
an intransitive verb plus a preposition. off the top of my head,
Spanish "mirar" is often translated "to look [at]". In English, you can't
say "I look you"; you have to say "I look at you"; but it's perfectly
valid to say "Te miro" in Spanish. There are other, better examples, but I
can't think of any at the moment.
-marqoS
An argument based upon equally strong foundation could be made that just
because it would be convenient to you for {qaq} to take an object, that
doesn't mean it can. Just because you want it to, you can't decide that it
does.
This is the ever unanswered problem of dealing with transitivity when so
far Okrand has given us very little to work with. Once Okrand gives us more
information, this will be a settled matter. Until he gives us such
information, I will continue to try to glean options of transitivity from
the English definitions. "Be preferable" doesn't sound very transitive, so
I won't use an object with it. When Okrand tells us otherwise, I'll
reconsider it.
Meanwhile, you have no grammatical references or canon to back up your
interpretation, and at least in terms of the use of the verb {qaq}, I DO
have canon to back up my chosen use of it.
charghwI'