tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 04 19:05:14 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: several questions

A recent post referenced a number of columns by the illustrious Captain Krankor 
in past issues of HolQeD.  Although the captain has been away defending distant 
borders of the Empire (or so his publicist says) I took it upon myself to 
forward him a copy of the post.  He in turn requested that I post to the list a 
reply. It follows.

Lawrence

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi guys.  Long time no talk, but I expect to return to the list
in a few weeks when I start my new job.  

Here's just some quick responses to some questions that came up and
were forwarded to me.

>In HolQeD 2:2, our friendly grammarian, Cpt. Krankor,
>considers the phrase
>
>QamtaHvIS Hegh QaQ law' tortaHvIS yIn QaQ puS
>Death while standing is better than life while kneeling.
>
>In order to avoid sentences in the A or B slot, he
>analyses Hegh and yIn as nouns. However, usually
>QamtaHvIS Hegh would mean "while death is standing",
>or doesn't it? So this use of -taHvIS to form attributive
>phrases is new to me. To see if I got it right, then,
>are the following correct?
>
>QaQ QamtaHvIS Hegh. qab tortaHvIS yIn
>Death while (one is) standing is good.
>Life while (one is) kneeling is bad.
>
>Do'Ha' yInpu'pa' Hegh.
>Death before one has completed living is unfortunate.
>
>yonmoH yInta'DI' Hegh.
>Death as soon as one has accomplished living is satisfying.

First off, let me state that my current belief is that the original
sentence in question used qaq -- to be preferrable, instead of QaQ
-- to be good.  But it's so hard to tell with the variable
pronounciation we invariably get.

Your point is a good one.  I would say, yes, your sentences are
correct, if perhaps not as clear as they might be.  One could argue
that a clearer version of the original would be

Qamlu'taHvIS Hegh qaq law' torlu'taHvIS yIn qaq puS

One could also argue that the vaguary in the original stems from
clipping.  Had he said, say:

maQamtaHvIS Hegh qaq law' matortaHvIS yIn qaq puS

then the sentence would certainly seem less strange and ambiguous.

But in any case, the construction seems sound, and rather akin to
similar -meH constructions.

QamtaHvIS yIn       life while standing
QammeH yIn          life in order to stand


>Next question: on CK I hear
>
>Ha'DIbaHmey meQ Sop 'e' tIv tera'nganpu'
>Terrans like to eat burnt animals.
>
>If this is correct, then meQ "to burn" can also
>be used as meQ "be burnt"?

This is an old and as-yet-unresolved argument.

>And could someone hint me to the missing words in
>
>??? De'vetlh		that is classified information
>??? Sop, tera'ngan	Bon Appetit, Terran
>
>I can't make anything out of what I hear...
>(at this place I need to say, I'm not very happy
>with Okrand's pronounciation, especially of r,gh,rgh)

The first one is pegh De'vetlh.  This really cements for all time
the notion of pegh meaning "to be secret", in contrast (or at least,
in addition to) the mu'ghom definition of "to keep secret".

The second one appears to be peSop, tera'ngan, which is, of course,
an error.  pe- would only be the correct prefix if the server were
talking to multiple terrans, which, in the dialogue, he isn't.  Not
the first time there have been errors in canonical sources.  For the
record, though, these gaffs appear to have become far less frequent
over time.

>Last question (for now): in HolQeD 3:2 our friendly
>grammarian, Cpt. Krankor, examines the usage of "it"
>in English and how this carries over to tlhIngan Hol.
>
>He is especially considering a usage, which is described as
>
>	the grammatical subject of a clause of which the
>	actual subject is another clause or phrase following
>
>this sure sounds like the dreaded "sentence-as-subject"
>to me. He concludes that Klingon may have this usage but
>that what is the subject in English becomes the object of
>the Klingon phrase, e.g.
>
>jaH neH ghaH 'e' teH
>HE wants to go. (something) is true that.
>It is true that he wants to go.
>
>I think this is weird. My personal opinion is, one would
>have to say something like
>
>jaH neH ghaH. teH mu'tleghvam.
>
>As those kind of constructions would occur quite often,
>and what else could be the subject of the second sentence
>other than something similar to mu'tlhghvam, one might
>suggest it can be elided (as our friendly grammarian,
>Cpt. Krankor, argues for peD = peD muD in the same article).
>Thus I'd say:
>
>jaH neH ghaH. teH.
>
>On the other hand, I don't see that TKD forbids the
>"sentence-as-subject" structure. It just says that
>'e' and net can't be used for it (except in the way
>our friendly grammarian, Cpt. Krankor, suggests).
>This means maybe we can say jaH neH ghaH teH, or we
>have to wait for the correct pronoun to use
>(jaH neH ghaH teH ZZZ). I need your input on this...

Fine, here's my input.

I, of course, like the notion of jaH neH ghaH 'e' teH.  I think it is
interesting and fits Klingon well.  On the other hand, I don't
actually use it because I think that, while there is some evidence
to justify it (most notably rIntaH), it is insufficient at this time.

I rather like your elided jaH neH ghaH. teH.  This seems on pretty
strong footing as far as legality.  The only problem is it is a
little unstraight-forward to the reader, who has to think a minute
to figure out what you are saying is true.   On the other hand, if
this kind of construction became widespread, that objection would go
away.

I absolutely hate the explict teH mu'tlheghvam.  It's just klunky
and ugly and disgusting.  Basically, whenever anybody starts
bringing in mu'tlhegh to try to point around to what they mean, I
grit my teeth.

Anyway, it's still a very open question.  In a pinch, one could
certainly use the 'e' teH construction and, while purists might
cringe (not unreasonably), they would at least understand what you
are saying. {{:-)  That is, you could certainly get away with it in
informal conversation, but I doubt you'd want to put it into Hamlet.

>		qatlho'
>				HomDoq

                qay'be'
                                HoD Qanqor multaHwI'



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director   :: The KLI is a nonprofit ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute   :: tax exempt corporation ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA :: DaH HuchlIj'e' ghonob  ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::  [email protected]  ::  [email protected]  :::  215/836-4955  ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Back to archive top level