tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 11 09:30:34 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cha'logh jImeQ
According to [email protected]:
>
> tlhobmeH ghItlh SuStel:
> >> Also, can anyone tell me a good way to express the word "still," as in
> "Does
> >> he still read this mailing list?"
>
> >> The best I can come up with is
> >> {jabbI'IDghomvam laD 'e' taH'a'}.
> jangmeH ghItlh charghwI':
> >jabbI'IDghomvam laDtaH'a' pIn'a'?
>
> jangmeH ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
> >I wince when I see apparently stative verbs forced to take an object.
> So do I.
> >I believe {taH} is stative; if you want to say he continues to read,
> >you might try {laD 'e' taHmoH}. I think the suffix {-taH} does well
> >to capture the meaning you want, though: {laDtaH'a' ghaH} should be
> >fine.
>
> I'm troubled by this solution. My reputation of criticism against nit-pickers
> may precede me, but this nit bothers me too much to just brush it back into
> the weeds. Twice the suggestion has arisen of using -taH to convey "continue
> to". -taH is more along the lines of "do continually", or better, "to be in
> the process of". I can fully understand why it would seem right to use -taH
> to say "I still/continue to read the mailing list." Altho, I must assert my
> understanding of it has always been of the connotation of "I am reading the
> mailing list", viz., a process or continual action, not an event that has
> occured in the past habitually and now recurs once more.
I can understand how you can come to this sense of the meaning
of {-taH}. I'll try to explain why I disagree. How would you
interpret the sentence:
be'nallI' DaqIptaH'a'?
Just like the English equivalent, "Do you still beat your
wife?" a yes or no answer will not suffice to convey that you
have never done so. The emphasis is on the continuity of the
action and not on the simple existence of the action. If you
said, {be'nallI' DaqIplI''a'?} a "no" answer would be enough to
express that you are not in the act of beating your wife.
I actually think that {-taH} comes CLOSER to meaning "still"
than it does to meaning "-ing". In English, we use "still" to
indicate that an action has occurred in the past and is
ocurring in the present and we make no presumptions about the
future at all. This is pretty much what {-taH} does in Klingon.
I see the difference between "It is raining," and "It is STILL
raining," as the difference between {SISlI'} or even {SIS} and
{SIStaH}. With either {SISlI'} or {SIS} you know that it is
currently raining and that it is going to stop. With {SIStaH}
the emphasis is more on the continuity of the raining than on
the act itself. As questions, this is even more obvious:
DaH SIS'a'? Does it rain now? Is it raining?
SISlI''a'? Is it raining? It is progressing towards NOT
raining, or perhaps has it completed this goal?
SIStaH'a'? Is it STILL raining? Does it continue to rain?
The suffix {-lI'} makes a presumption about the future which
does not fit the emphasis of the English "still", though in
many instances it works well for "-ing", as in, "I am filling
this bucket with water," or "I am destroying the enemy's ship."
I think that using {-taH} to express what English expresses
with {-ing} is often a bad translation.
> One needs only think once about the difference of meanings between "I still
> read this list" and "I am reading this list".
jabbI'IDghom vIlaDtaH. I still read this list.
jabbI'IDghom vIlaDlI'. I am reading this list."
As I see it, we are talking about an action which is spoken of
as if it were continuous, while it is actually repetitive.
Reading this list is actually the repeated action of reading
the messages from this list, so if we are going to stretch
things to consider it a continuous action AT ALL, it seems
appropriate to use {-taH} to mean that you still do this
repeated action of signing on and reading new messages.
If you want to get nit picky, you should consider the problem
of considering reading the list as a continuous action. (Heh,
heh. I can see Guido #1 perplexed by a new philosophical
bind...)
For me, {-lI'} could serve either to refer to the action of
reading a single message, which one intends to end soon. Why?
Context, of course! What is the end goal of reading the list
which parallels that of filling a bucket with water? Well,
there isn't one. Meanwhile, reading a message is quite
different and makes much more sense as having a clear goal in
sight.
So by context, I can tell that laDtaH refers to the ongoing
continuation of reading the list, much as the English "I am
still reading this list," conveys, while laDlI' refers to the
more local sense of reading a single message from the list,
much as, "I am reading this list," conveys.
In fact, I really think the English "helper word" "still" is a
fine way to express {-taH} in translations most of the time. It
even works without great interferance in sentences with
{-taHvIS}. jabbI'IDghom vIlaDtaHvIS vIQub. "While I still read
the list, I think." "While I am reading the list, I think,"
"While I read the list, I think." These are pretty much
equivalent in English. Basically, {-taH} works well in instances
which could be translated either as "still" or "-ing", but not
so well when "still" would sound wrong, but "-ing" sounds okay.
I add that most of the time you wish to express "-ing" in which
"still" sounds wrong, I suggest that the {-taH} is probably
superfluous and the meaning of the sentence would be quite well
preserved with no aspect marker whatsoever rather than use
{-taH}.
> I will not bring this up again,
> because of the ferocious argumentation that it will give birth to, mostly
> resultant of differing backgrounds. There are devices and concepts in other
> language that make the use of -taH as I've described it clear, e.g., Russian,
> English, Greek, French, Esperanto. The imperfective aspect, the aorist tense.
> A quick dismissal of the importance of these concepts in the study of a
> language topological similar to naturally-occuring languages never fails to
> infuriate me (as many know already).
Don't start that "different backgrounds" arrogance again.
Dismissing my expertise in this language relative to your
higher linguistic exposure is not an interesting way to try to
win an argument. Surely your larger set of linguistic tools can
bring about a convincing argument that even a layperson can
understand... or have your linguistic lessons left you unable
to communicate your meanings?
[Brief break here. This taunt could easily be misinterpreted to
be mean spirited or a sign of bad blood between ghuy'Do
charghwI' je, but quite the opposite. I love the guy and think
he is a linguistic genius who is only wrong when he disagrees
with ME.]
> I'm beyond my former immaturity of running and hiding from the list
This is good.
> (altho I
> did have more time for Hamlet that way). But if we can't exchange ideas while
> recognizing the significance of the relevant background material, viz.
> linguistics, I can't see discussion of grammatical matters as having any
> constructivity anymore, and I expect in that case that others will not
> criticize my own usages which may seem too 'radical'. It would be sad if we
> found ourselves entrenched in such an attitude, but would probably allow our
> minds not to be absorbed in the sheer temperature of irrational anger,
> resulting from our yajQo'ghach'a'.
wej jIQeH.
> After linguistic matters are tended to, I should finally remark that I hope
> that my age does not affect others' accounts of my credibility, and if my
> written temperament and composure above does not convince you of that, then I
> must have been wrong in believing that intelligence does not correlate to how
> many plaques are on your wall.
Anyone who dismisses your arguments because of your age (which
is becoming less of an excuse as the years go by) is a fool.
You've proven your competence here. When you speak, people
listen. They don't always agree, but often they do, and even
when they disagree, they do so respectfully. You have to
respect yourself enough to recognize that.
In this particular argument, I think there is more to be
explored. My current opinion has developed in part as response
to what you, as peer, have said and it may yet form some new
shape before this discussion is over. We might all gain a
deeper clarity on the nature of {-taH} from this.
Besides, I haven't has so much fun since we argued about
{-moHlu'}...
> And with that off my chest, I feel much better. Ahhh.
maj... [1..., 2..., 3...] DaH bIleS 'e' yImev!
> --Guido
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |