tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 02 16:11:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: on naming convention
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: on naming convention
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 96 00:01:53 UT
December 02, 1996 5:23 PM, jatlh charghwI':
> On Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:25:29 -0800 David Trimboli
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > December 01, 1996 7:14 PM, jatlh qayrIS:
> ..
> > > So I'm translating {vIponglu'} as "I am called," choosing the
> > > passive voice intentionally..
> >
> > What you're doing is fiddling with the English translation, hoping it
changes
> > the meaning. Remember that however you translate it, it still says the
same
> > thing in Klingon. In this case, {-lu'} may often be *translated* into
> > English's passive voice, but that's not its definition. {-lu'} always
refers
> > to an action with an indefinite subject.
>
> I think this is a point a lot of people like to make a big stink
> over which does not deserve this much significance. The passive
> voice works just fine for most sentences using {-lu'}. In fact,
> for most of them I think it works BETTER than the awkward
> "One/someone calls me." That's why Okrand himself usually uses
> the passive voice to translate his sentences using {-lu'}.
>
> The main reason I believe that he makes a point of saying that
> {-lu'} is not exactly and exclusively the same thing as passive
> voice is because {-lu'} can also be used with intransitive
> verbs. There's no way that the TKD example {quSDaq ba'lu''a'?}
> can be translated into the passive voice.
Was the chair sat upon?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My intention here is not to explain how to best
translate Klingon into English. For that, certainly, Krankor's HolQeD story
is an excellent reference.
My intention is to help prevent English language formations from influencing
Klingon sentences. Most beginners have to start by thinking of an English
sentence, and then translating it. If they write a passive voice sentence
(and many of them don't know the difference between passive and active voice),
they will try to translate using {-lu'}. Occasionally you'll run into a
problem like the one above.
I agree that IF YOUR INTENTION IS FOR THE BEST *ENGLISH* TRANSLATION POSSIBLE,
THEN YOU CAN USUALLY TRANSLATE INTO THE PASSIVE VOICE. The problem was that
qayrIS thought that {-lu'} *meant* passive voice. It does not.
> So, you can rightfully avoid straining yourself trying to force
> an intransitive verb with {-lu'} into an impossible passive
> voice and then carry that small lesson to the extreme of NEVER
> using the passive voice EVEN THOUGH IT WORKS BETTER IN OTHER
> CASES, if you choose, but I, for one, will ALWAYS encourage
> people to use the passive voice when translating transitive
> verbs with {-lu'} because it properly conveys the meaning and
> does so with a very natural English translation.
My advice did not mean this. I meant: when you are a beginner, trying to work
out what the heck so-and-so just said, it is helpful to always work out how to
say this in the active voice, so that you get the correct understanding of the
sentence. Not so it's pretty.
I speak from experience. When I was starting, I also tried to think of {-lu'}
as equal to the passive voice. I was as confused as a Romulan in QI'tu'.
When I read the appropriate section of TKD enough times, I started to realize
that my passive voice thinking wasn't clarifying things. When I started to
sound out sentences with "one does such-and-such," it all fell into place!
> > Many people go through this problem. I found a long time ago that if I
always
> > translate {-lu'} verbs as "one does blah blah," I never run into the
problem
> > of trying to emulate English passive voice.
>
> And I can swim faster with flippers on, but that doesn't mean
> they work really well when playing basketball.
I'd love to see that next July!
> Sometimes the
> passive voice is inappropriate, but most of the time it is the
> best choice when translating verbs with {-lu'}.
For translating, yes. For understanding, not necessarily.
> Just learn when
> it works and when it doesn't instead of trying to preach an
> extremely safe and very awkward technique.
>
> > For example, Okrand translates
> > {batlh Daqawlu'taH} as "You will be remembered with honor," but when *I*
> > translate it, I don't use the passive voice: "Someone will remember you
with
> > honor." It may sound funny in English, but you won't go wrong with that.
>
> So, why sound funny in English? Okrand doesn't sound funny in
> English.
When one learns calculus, one starts with incredibly long and difficult
algebra problems. Eventually, doing these problems over and over gets you to
start understanding what it is you're doing. Then, the teacher says, "Aha!
Look at this! Notice this pattern? The derivative of x^n is always nx^(n-1)!
Look at all those problems you've been doing all along! See?" He then
explains all the shortcuts. No one in their right mind would do calculus
without the shortcuts, but you wouldn't have the foggiest idea what it meant
if you simply learned the formula.
> It is a good exercise to deal with the literal translations of
> things, but that should only be a tool for tuning the accuracy
> of more natural sounding translations. Literal translations are
> interesting, but incomplete. To finish them, you need
> techniques, like using the passive voice.
Aha! You DO understand!
> While I tend to favor canon, in that particular example, the
> option of expressing the indirect object implicitly through the
> prefix is not available because there is no visible difference
> between the singular third person of the direct object (the
> name of the planet) or the indirect object (the planet being
> named). So, if I were to say, "He is called SuStel," I would
> have to say, {ghaHvaD SuStel ponglu'.} There is no way to
> construct that in the same way I can say, {charghwI' vIponglu'.}
What I *do* see with the SkyBox card is not how to deal with two objects for
{pong}, but rather, what the direct object of the verb actually is.
Apparently, the direct object must be the name. From there, it's just the
normal grammatical place of {-vaD} to show who is the recipient of the naming.
It's not just a matter of "put the direct object here, put the indirect
object there."
In all fairness, I'll admit that {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} in SkyBox card S20
seems to be a contradiction of this. But in this case, the {-moH} allows the
action to be *performed* by the {-vaD} noun, and this noun does not "recieve"
the verb.
> > Again, {-lu'} may be used to express English's passive voice, but that's
NOT
> > what it is.
>
> That is not what it ALWAYS is, but in many examples (in MOST
> examples) the two are totally indistinguishable. There is no
> sense trying to blow up the exceptional cases as evidence that
> the passive voice can never be accurately applied to {-lu'} as a
> valid translation. This perspective is more wrong than that
> which you are trying to correct.
Whoah! I never said "the passive voice can never be accurately applied to
{-lu'} as a valid translation," nor do I believe that. I agree; they usually
are indistinguishable. However, the English passive voice background of
English speakers sometimes causes them to goof up sentences with {-lu'}. To
avoid this problem, I found that thinking of it in terms of the active voice
solved my problems. ONCE I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING IN KLINGON and I know
I'm saying it correctly, I CAN MAKE A SMOOTH TRANSLATION BACK INTO ENGLISH.
> > {jIHvaD *qayrIS* ponglu'} would most accurately be translated as "One
names
> > 'Kyris'; this naming applies to me."
>
> No. It means, "One calls me Kyris." Or better yet, "I am called
> Kyris."
I certainly don't see the difference, besides the sorts of words we used. My
sentence and yours *mean* the same thing, but I stretched mine out to bring
out the subtle parts. I certainly don't expect anyone to *talk* like that!
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96922.7