tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 05 20:12:01 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Stephen's introduction
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Stephen's introduction
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:12:44 -0400
In a message dated 96-07-05 18:01:48 EDT, you write:
> > In a message dated 96-06-27 01:09:14 EDT, peHruS
> wrote:
> >
> > >I, peHruS, prefer {*Stephen* 'oH pongwIj'e'} because it translates back
> > >literally as "As for my name, it is Stephen." I prefer putting the
> emphasis
> > >that Klingon's {-'e'} carries on {pong}. The other way would translate
"
> As
> > >for Stephen, it is my name."
>
> I wanted to argue with this, saying that the {-'e'} is a
> formality attached to the verb "to be" and it didn't have
> anything to do with "As for X...", but I looked it up in
> TKD (imagine that!) and it's right there in black and
> white.
>
> Even with that, I don't see a huge difference between "As
> for my name, it is Stephen," and "As for Stephen, it is my
> name." They both work for me, depending on context.
You're quite right. I was (erroneously) concentrating on only the case of
introducing oneself (as suggested in the subject of this thread). I have
deleted your examples below for brevity, but they are quite correct.
> Another way of viewing it is to note where the emphasis is.
> "My name is STEPHEN (not George or Fred)." Or, "Stephen is
> my NAME (not my address or my species).
>
> Note that these could just as easily have been stated,
> "STEPHAN (not George or Fred) is my name," and "My NAME
> (not my address or my species) is Stephan."
But this is my point. I like to use the "As for my name . . ." type of
translation into English, because it accurately points out the emphasis of
your sentence, which must be the subject. The problem with English is that
"to be" CAN be used in weird ways, and these ways interfere with our
understanding of what the point of the sentence is.
The examples you gave were excellent. It seems that we're arguing (more or
less) the same point. (You said it better though). However, I think the
methods that we are using to get there are different.
> Face it. In English, the verb "to be" is weird.
Believe me, I know it. In fact, I have asked about how "to be" works in
English on this list in the past a couple of times (while having to do with a
larger post), and no one has ever even tried to answer. The reason I was
asking was to see if I could work out what order to place the nouns in these
sorts of sentences. That was before I decided (as I'm trying - badly - to
explain) that the order doesn't matter. The emphasis, and thus the subject,
will always go last.
>Okrand started out
> wanting to ban it from Klingon entirely and then added this
> pronoun thing later, mostly to make a lot of lines he was
> told to write easier to write.
>
> And no, I didn't make that up or imagine it.
I never thought that you did.
> >I suggest
> >that
> > this can be thought of as two sentences, or at least one and a half.
> > Consider the sentence as such:
> >
> > pongwIj 'oH . . . . . . . . . *Stephen*'e'
>
> I think this is going a bridge too far. We simply don't
> have to do this. Stephen is the subject. If it were not the
> subject, it would go at the beginning of the sentence like
> all other nouns which are neither subject or object. The
> only noun which follows the main verb is the subject.
Main verb? But it's a pronoun. Yes, I know they "can be used as verbs" (TKD
67), but they still are not verbs. And that in itself suggests that the
whole O-V-S format might be out the window. After all, you don't need to put
{-'e'} on every subject, only those in noun-pronoun-noun'e' constructions.
Note that I'm not saying that this accounts for any great explanations on my
part. It's just something to keep in mind.
So much for the "how we got to the answer" part. Now, I ask you: how does my
idea prevent the final noun from being the subject of the sentence? My
suggestion is to "think" of the construction as being a sentence and a half.
I am not saying that it is. {David 'oH pongwIj'e'} is a single sentence,
right? Is {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} one or two sentences?
> Usually, the pronoun is the subject, as in {tlhIngan maH},
> but if the subject is an explicit noun, it follows the
> pronoun and gets the {-'e'} added. Okay?
By the book.
> > "It is my name. . . . I'm talking about 'Stephen.'" The first two words
> make
> > up a regular sentence using a pronoun in Klingon, and the third word
> explains
> > what the sentence is referring to.
>
> That's not altogether inaccurate, but it really is subject
> of the verb "to be". It gets translated as subject of the
> verb "to be", unless you use the alternative translation
> "As for X..." which Okrand does allow in TKD. I personally
> suspect he is making a point here about the English meaning
> of the verb "to be" in this kind of setting. We are talking
> about a three way equivalency among "my name", "it" and
> "Stephen".
And a good alternative it is! I don't give a glob fly as to what is the best
format in English to use for translating N-P-N, as long as you get the
concept across.
So, when I say that the third word explains what the first two words,
considered a sentence, are referring to, I don't mean to say that it's really
two sentences, but I think it's a useful way to look at it in order to put
emphasis on the right noun.
> > If this interpretation is correct, then I agree with peHruS: {*Stephen*
'
> oH
> > pongwIj'e'} would make a better translation. "It is 'Stephen.' . . .
I'm
> > referring to my name." Just like the {'e'} construction in Klingon, the
> > sentence is actually considered two sentences.
>
> Here I disagree. I don't see it at all gibberish to say,
> "As for Stephan, it is my name," or in your terminology,
> "It is my name ... I'm referring to Stephen."
I didn't say it was gibberish. I just was considering this statement from
the point of view of someone making an introduction, and as I've said, other
situations may call for ordering the nouns the other way.
> > The only problem with this idea is the set of canonical sentences which
go
> > along the lines of {Sojvetlh 'oH nuq'e'}
>
> What canon examples? Remind me of the source.
errr . . . now that you mention it, I have no idea. I must have made that
up. I'm probably getting confused with the {Dochvam nuq} examples. DopDaq
qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'!
Actually, though, since that seems to be the only one, I guess there *isn't*
much problem with my idea as far as canon is concerned! :-)
>
> > (a problem unless Klingon nouns
> > switch places as in English "What is your name?" "My name is Stephen.")
>
> Bad example. You could as easily answer, "Stephen is my
> name," or the question could have been "Your name is what?"
> especially with an emphasis on the last word.
I was simply saying that since English nouns can switch places and subject
and object are a bit confused in a "to be" sentence, it made me wonder
whether or not this could happen in Klingon. I didn't give it much thought,
actually, which is why it appeared in my post as a sort of footnote.
However, you have pointed out that the subject in Klingon is always after
the pronoun, so my wondering has been satisfied.
[referring to {SoH 'Iv}]
> I personally consider either construction to be valid. Who
> among us would not understand either one? Of course, I
> guess {SoH 'Iv} should at least be {SoH 'Iv'e'}, but I
> don't think that is what we were given...
No, it was definitely {SoH 'Iv}. Hmmm . . . maybe we can speculate (or has
it been done already?) that the combination of a pronoun and a question word
can cause the construction to reverse its expected order with certain words .
. . :-) [charghwI', I'm just kidding! Really . . . !]
Hmmm . . . y'know, this was a long post! Yikes!
SuStel
Stardate 96512.3