tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 15 12:57:48 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Odo quote from Trials & Tribblations

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 08:16:11 -0800 "Mark E. Shoulson" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 06:59:33 -0800
> >From: "Donald E. Vick" <[email protected]>
> >
> >jatlh SuStel:
> >> chay' ghaH luvangmoH yIHmey?
> >     I'm not sure of how you're using <chay'>.  In English, the word
> >"how" can be asking "by what means" in which case the answer would be
> ><ghaH luvangmoHmeH lunuQ yIHmey> or it can be asking "in what manner"
> >in whch case the answer would be <ghaH luQeHmoH yIHmey>.  I'm guessing
> >your intent was the latter.
> >     But do we have canon for this dual use of "how" in Klingon?  I'm
> >not familiar with it.

What canon do we have? We have {chay' jura'?} TKD page 70 and on 
the same page {chay'} used alone to mean, "How did this happen? 
What happened? What the --?" {chay' jura'} appears in several 
other places in canon. That's all the useage I can find.

Clearly, {chay' jura'} are not the words of an 
insubordinate demanding that you justify your authority ("By 
what means do you order us?") Instead, he is an obedient crewman 
asking, "In what manner do you order us?"

Even that is ambiguous in English, since it could be answered, 
"I order you LOUDLY!" So, why did Okrand choose the word {chay'} 
instead of {nuq} here, since the English is translated, "What 
are your orders?"

Well, we don't have a noun for "orders", and we don't like to 
use the verb "to be" if we don't have to. Also, by my 
interpretation, the object of {ra'} can be person being ordered 
or ship commanded. {TKD page 43} {HolQeD v4n3p4}. The stuff you 
say when you give orders is not apparently the proper object for 
this verb.

So how would a noun meaning "the stuff you say when giving 
orders" be related to this verb? Indirect object? No. Is there a 
Type 5 noun suffix to explain the relationship? Perhaps {-mo'}, 
but that would be a bit of a stretch.

The answer to {chay'} jura' is not a noun. If I say, {tIn nuq?} 
you might answer {Duj}. "What is big?" "The ship." You plug the 
noun in where the question word went. "The ship is big." You 
don't need the sentence. Just the noun and you have your answer. 
The same is true for {'Iv}.

Meanwhile, the answer to a {chay'} question is not a noun. It is 
a whole sentence. You ask {chay' jura'} and I start talking, 
giving you the orders. You ask {chay'} alone and I start 
explaining what happened.

It seems that the word "how" is a poor translation for {chay'}. 
Just as we must search for the appropriate object of each verb, 
we must search for the appropriate answer to each question word 
or construction. {chay'} is treated grammatically as an adverb. 
The answer is a kind of "Begin speaking about the stuff relating 
to the action in my question."

I would expect that {chay'?} alone would be a clipped {chay' 
qaS?} At that point, you are supposed to tell stuff relating to 
the action of "happen", just like {chay' jura'} relates to stuff 
relating to the action of you ordering us.

So I don't think {chay'} really maps well to either of the two 
meanings of "how" that you list. Instead, I think {chay'} has a 
meaning which doesn't map well to ANY English question word, 
though "how" in some idiomatic uses comes closer than anything 
else. {chay'} asks for explanation or detail concerning the 
environment of the action.

In this way, it does not act like the other question words. They 
ask for the answer which can replace the question word. {jej 
nuq} {taj} {jej taj}. {qu' 'Iv?} {QanQor.} {qu' Qanqor.} {ghorgh 
mamej?} {wa'leS} {wa'leS mamej}. {nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?} 
{vaS poS lojmIt cha'DIchDaq.} {vaS poS lojmIt cha'DIchDaq 'oH 
puchpa'e'.}

{chay' jura'?} *{tajlIj qanob jura'.}* This is clearly and 
utterly wrong. It is gibberish.

But wait! If it were a direct quote and we shifted things a bit, 
it would be more like {nuq DaneH}. {Soj} {Soj vIneH}. We change 
the prefix on the verb, so if we do the same for {chay'}:

chay' jura'?
tajlIj HInob! tajlIj HInob Sara'.

Or, of course:

Sara' tajlIj HInob!

So, the relationship between the answer to {chay'} and the 
sentence containing it is perhaps similar to the relationship 
between a direct quote and the grammatically independent 
statement of speaking that quotation. It is not a direct object. 
It is not an indirect object. It is a link so different in 
Klingon from anything in English that it is very difficult to 
explain except through example.

It would be nice if Okrand gave us more examples, but for 
myself, I think I can see a conservative way to interpret this 
and make good use of it. {chay'} is apparently something like, 
"Tell me stuff relating to..." "Given that we both recognize 
that X occurs, start talking about X." "In the context of X, 
fill me in on what you know."

> I remember asking this very question upwards of six years ago on a list
> somewhere.  Well, not about Klingon, but noting the double use of "how."
> It seems that the dual meaning is fairly common among languages, and more
> importantly, if Okrand had intended there to be to two "how"s, I'd expect
> he would have told us.
> 
> ~mark

So, does this give you even MORE to ponder?

charghwI'

Back to archive top level