tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 27 09:34:41 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} DIGEST V1 #60
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} DIGEST V1 #60
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:34:41 -0400
>Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 21:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>On Sun, 24 Sep 1995, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> >Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 20:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
>> >From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>>
>> >But perhaps a simple way you could say it is: {ngab rIntaH pagh.} (Nothing
>> >completely vanishes.)
>>
>> I don't think I buy this one. For starters, I think the word-order sounds
>> better as "ngab pagh rIntaH", but also it doesn't seem right.
>Section 4.2.7 seems to indicate that {rIntaH} follows the verb: "It is
>used to denote that the action denoted by the preceeding verb...."
>It also make sense to me to place {rIntaH} immediately after the verb
>because it modifies the verb. But I'm not saying I'm right and you're
>wrong because the rules don't really say exactly where to put it and we
>don't have an example of a sentence with an explicitly stated subject.
>(Perhaps you can ask Dr. Okrand when you get a chance. {{:-) )
You're right, it does say it follows the verb. reH Suvrup SuvwI''a'. For
some reason I thought of it as following the sentence.
>> rIntaH
>> doesn't seem to make sense in the negative. It's a sentence in its own
>> right, modifying another in a unique way. You can say "X happened, and
>> it's done" but saying "X doesn't happen and it's done" doesn't work (after
>> all, rIntaH is sort of like "and it remains accomplished." If it didn't
>> happen or can't happen, then it DOESN'T remain accomplished).
>I don't disagree with your logic, but I do disagree with your translation
>of the sentence. The sentence does not say that it "does not happen", (I
>did not use {-be'}) but rather it remains a fait accompli that no one or
>nothing has done it.
Hmm. Also a good point. I'm not sure it changes anything in my mind,
though, since the semantics of the sentence are still negative (the event
still did not take place; finessing that by saying that it "*was* done by
nobody" in some sense seems at best poetic or technical. It might work in
a Klingon book on formal logic, but not as snarled advice from a captain to
the sensor-tech demanding to know where that ship they were following
went.)
>> Besides, to talk about something doing something "completely" or
>> "perfectly", the Klingon Grammarians in their generosity have bequeathed
>> unto us "-chu'".
>I recognize that my use of the word "completely" is not an exact
>translation of the word {rIntaH}, but the sentence is one which does not
>easily translate into English without a lot of awkward-sounding language.
>In the original post, the question was for a way to say, "Nothing
>which vanishes can not be tracked down." In this case, I thought
>{rIntaH} would be a better choice in meaning "nothing which vanishes
>remains a fait accompli (that it has vanished)". In other words,
>sooner or later someone will find it; it does not remain hidden for good.
I'm not sure rIntaH is strong enough to mean that as a primary meaning.
What I mean is, yes, rIntaH carries the meaning of "cannot be undone." But
it's used only to add that meaning onto another clause. That is, when you
say "qama' vIHoH rIntaH", the main point is that you killed the prisoner.
That's what the sentence is about. It's just added information that it's
happened and can't be undone. If you negate that sentence, or say that
such an event can't be done, or even that it *could* be done by someone,
then it's the event of killing the prisoner that I think you're talking
about. The "rIntaH" doesn't seem to be usable as the topic. But you're
trying to use it in just such a way, saying that the act of disappearing
can't be done with the proviso that that disappearing be irreversable. The
irreversability is key to your sentence, and key to your statement that
it's impossible.
Boiled down to a simple argument: I don't think it works and I don't really
have a solid argument why not that I can say. :)
>I do not think {-chu'} sematically fits well with the meaning I intended
>because it would indicate nothing can perfectly vanish, that is, even if
>it tries, it can still be seen or detected; which is different than saying
>things can vanish, but they don't remain unfound.
That comes back to what you're translating. "Nothing vanishes without a
trace" sure as hell sounds to me like talking about the inability of an
object to vanish "perfectly" in the sense of vanishing leaving nothing to
be detected (no "traces"), "even if it tries."
~mark