tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 01 15:41:26 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Comments on my sentances

At 12:54 AM 3/1/96 -0800, you wrote:
>After reading all your replys, and being completely confused I decided to go
>back to the Klingon Dictionary for help. I found the section on the verb suffix
><neS> (section 4.2.8)
>
>The first example they gave was <qaleghneS> meaning <I am honored to see you>.
>If I take what ~mark said it should mean <I see you, your honor>, but
>dictionary seems to think otherwise.

You are taking one early example and ignoring more recent clarifying
examples on the audiotapes and then with this weak premise, building to a
logical, but incorrect conclusion.

First, consider that the description in TKD says, "It is used to express
extreme politeness or deference. It is used only in addressing a superior,
someone of higher rank in the Klingon social, political, or military
hierarchy." This is consistent with ~mark's interpretation, but it has
absolutely nothing to do with your interpretation. This alone should be a
wakeup call.

Next, try to find the consistency between the TWO examples in TKD instead of
fixating on your interpretation of just one of them:

qaleghneS - I am honored to see you.
HIja'neS - Do me the honor of telling me. [Note the use of the prefix to
indicate the indirect object...-- listening, ghunchu'wI'?]

So, exactly where is the honor really going in these examples? In the first,
the speaker is really applying honor to the addressee, since the addressee
must really be honorable for the speaker to note that he is honored merely
by seeing the addressee. It really could be translated as "I see you, your
honor," and mean pretty much the same thing. In both cases the speaker
conveys that he sees the addressee and the addressee is a very honorable
superior.

In the second example, again, the implication is that the addressee is a
superior who is so honorable that the speaker requests honor be granted him
in the form of an answer. "Tell me, your honor," is a parallel meaning.

Recognize that modern English does not really have an exact parallel to this
honorific suffix. It is a formal style of speech. That all makes it a bit
difficult to explain well, and apparently Okrand felt that he had not done
such a great job of explaining it in TKD, so it explained it better on CK.

>If we take <qaleghneS> and remove the <qa> we end up with <leghneS> - <He is
>honored to see it>

You are already inaccurate. Look at the description in TKD again before the
examples. What does your translation have to do with expressing extreme
politeness or deference, and why would it be addressed only to a superior?

>If we then add a <lu'> to make <leghlu'neS> - <One is honored to see it>

Again, this has nothing to do with speaking to a superior or with being
polite. Meanwhile, "It is seen, your honor," definitely fulfills these criteria.

>If we then change the <legh> to <ghaj> we have <ghajlu'neS> - <One is
honored to
>have it> as the only thing that changed was the verb.

Again, you continue to build logically upon a faulty premise. You didn't
REALLY read TKD. You just grabbed one example and built upon a bad
interpretation of what it meant.

>Then we can simply add <tlhIngan 'Iw> to make <tlhIngan 'Iw ghajlu'neS> - <One
>is honored to have Klingon blood> , which is approximately what I wanted.   
>		  We don't have <One has Klingon blood, your honor>.

Again, your interpretation has nothing to do with politeness or addressing a
superior, while the example you reject does. Convinced yet?

>In ~marks examples I did notice that it the examples he gave where <verb
>subject> which he translated as <*********, your honor.>

That's the way it is presented on the audiotapes. There are other ways of
translating the meaning of this, but this is the most formulaic method. All
other forms of translation require taking each example and individually
considering how to express politeness to the addressee. Okrand did so in
both examples in TKD, but it was easy to misinterpret, as you did, so he
made it clearer on the audiotape.

>Chris Lipscombe.

Back to archive top level