tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 22 13:32:39 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: misc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 01:23:22 -0700
>From: "A.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
> (0) TKW p85 has {ghIj qet jaghmeyjaj} (5 syllables) = "may your enemies run
>with fear". Here Okrand says that, as sometimes with proverbs, the grammar is
>nonstandard and would normally be {jaghmeylI' DaghLIjjaj, qetjaj jaghmeylI'}
>(11 syllables). (The 'l' which I uppercase here was omitted in the book.)
What "l"? The word is "ghIj"; Klingon has no words starting with "ghl"
that we know of.
>This
>seems to show that long ago the optative suffix {-jaj} was a separate word.
>The two apparent verbs together may date back to a time of long-vanished case
>and similar endings to sort word relationships out, and/or a time when there
>were far fewer homophonies between a verb and a noun with unrelated meanings.
Well, actually I *think* it's a horrendous backfit he was forced into. But
yes, it could be that Klingon once had -jaj separate. That wouldn't be all
that surprising; very often affixes started out as separate words. That
knowledge doesn't have all too many practical applications in Modern
Klingon, though (in fact, none that I know of except this sentence).
>If there was a passivizer suffix # (e.g. X ghIj# Y = Y ghIj Y), this could be
>{ghIj#ghachmo' qetjaj jaghmeylI'} (9 syllables) "scare - -ed_being - ness -
>due_to ...". Or try {ghIjghachvo' qetjaj jaghmeylI'} (8 syllables, 7 if
>{ghach} could be omitted (see (12)) "scaring - ness - away_from ...")
Yeah, but there isn't. I *really* doubt we're going to see any more
suffixes. Too much is known about the language for one to have been
overlooked. Besides, what's wrong with "Hajmo' qetjaj jaghmeylI'" (may
your enemies flee in dread/because they dread)? Or "DaghIjmo' qetjaj
jaghmeylI'" (may your [scattered] enemies flee because you scare them)? I
don't see the need for the putative passivizer OR -ghach here.
> (1) Using sentient suffixes with animals etc, e.g. {targhpu'wI'} rather than
>{targhmeywIj}: is it absolutely wrong, or does it merely imply a tendency to
>treat pet animals as having personal rights etc like people (like some people
>do in the real world, e.g. calling a dog "he" rather than "it")? Likewise e.g.
>{naDev verghDaq ghaH DujwI'} rather than {naDev verghDaq 'oH DujwIj} = "my
>ship is in dock here.": whether or not my ship's computer is sentient. Thus
>e.g. {batlhwI'} = my [treated as sentient] sword" may look strange: but old
>Germanic warriors on Earth often gave their swords personal names.
Interesting question. We have nothing to go on that I know of. I'd tend
to think that doing it would be highly marked and indicate that the speaker
is, for some reason, treating the object as sentient, presumably
colloquially. It's more than just using "he" for a dog in English, since
although we normally use "it", "he" really implies nothing more than gender
in English. It's more like saying (perhaps when explaining potential
energy) "OK, so this weight up here really wants to be down there, where
the potential is lower." The speaker is, for
idiomatic/colloquial/rhetorical purposes, ascribing sentient
characteristics to something that doesn't have it. It's anthropomorphism,
or personification. I'd think a Klingon who did the same with a
non-sentient object would be viewed as doing the same. Somewhat wrong in
the sense that a purist wouldn't like it in formal speech, but not
completely unintelligible, and certainly fitting in some poetic contexts
(even as personification is a recognized poetic/rhetorical tool in other
languages).
> (6) The TKW proverb {ram meqmey} can be parsed 2 ways: it could mean
>"motives are insignificant" (as TKW says), or it could mean "the night of
>motives".
Actually, it could mean "motives are insignificant" or "motives of the
night"/"night's motives." So?
> (7) The names Kozak and Azetbur in TKW make me think that some nonstandard
>modern Klingon dialect or language indeed has the {z} sound.
Or else that someone saw fit to transliterate a Klingon "S" into "z" in
certain phonological circumstances. Or else that someone wasn't thinking;
after all, we know Worf's name is wo'rIv, and thus despite its English
pronunciation doesn't imply a Klingon "f".
>If so, there
>would be a modern or disused pIqaD letter for {z},
Not necessarily: it could be a dialectical variant for {S}. Some dialects
of Spanish pronounce "c" as /s/, some as /th/ (in certain environments).
This doesn't mean that Spanish has a letter for representing /th/ as
a distinct sound.
> (10) Re (9): for e.g. "my ship", is {jIH Duj} with separate pronoun
>acceptable as an emphatic (= "MY!! ship"), leaving {dujwIj} as non-emphatic?
There is no support that I know of for that. It's an intriguing thought,
though.
> (11) Re (9), how far must difficulties and contradictions etc go before we
>have to reject published story matter to simplify matters?
You know my opinion on that.
> (12) {-ghach} lets us form infinitives of compound tenses, but many say not
>of simple tenses. To avoid awkward or long-winded circumlocutions: please: can
>Okrand please tell us: (a) Can any simple verb be used as its infinitive, as
>some verbs can now?
What's an infinitive? Think in terms of situations, not vague terms. How
would you use an infinitive? Not every language uses them the same way.
Klingon uses -DI' in some circumstances and -meH in others, etc. You use
the right tool for the job, not some imported toll that worked on a variety
of jobs in another language. Each language determines how to handle its
cases differently.
> (b) If rule (a) causes ambiguity from homophones, can
>{-ghach} be allowed to be added to simple verbs to remove these homophonies?
What do you have against homophonies? They're part of language.
> (13) Can Okrand please give a ruling on the vexed matter of whether e.g.
>"One can kill prisoners" can be translated as {qama'pu' HoHlaHlu'}? Perhaps
>the chance of someone wanting to use indefinite subject on an ability verb,
>merely escaped his attention.
It seems unlikely, since -lu' and -laH are so disparate I expect he put
them in the same class just to be a pain. And also I believe we have canon
where he used "XlaH vay'" for that meaning, clearly avoiding *-laHlu'.
Still, I also know that he's occasionally painted himself into a corner
like that (for example, I'd like to hear about using object prefixes with
type 1 suffixes, like "?Hol wIja'chuq" for "we discuss language", which
is possibly defensible by the argument that since it has its own entry,
maybe ja'chuq is not considered ja'+chuq but rather a word in its own
right. But this doesn't answer things in general).
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMfPlW8ppGeTJXWZ9AQGzMwL/eFutkGYbJTUIaXS8fa3UatEnjWiAONYT
YuNTHT155GyGeLZ3KyTy+0TWI6l8VoCcnbwDMt2IAKWjFDji6Ywr2pZ7cby/U7bz
PIHY356J37XbqMXf08KR9x0R5BRra1jG
=iWl3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----