tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 14 07:42:01 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: asking
>Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:50:08 -0800
>From: Terry Donnelly <[email protected]>
>I still have this nagging feeling that Okrand really does intend for {tlhob}
>to mean "asking for (an action to be performed)" and some other word
>(maybe {yu'} to mean "asking (about the truth of something)". I'm thinking
>now of the words for "Yes" and "No". It seems to me that {lu'/luq} and
>{Qo'} are intended as "Yes" and "No" replies to requests ("Yes (I will),
>"No (I won't)), while {Hija'/HISlaH} and {ghobe'} are supposed to answer
>questions of fact ("Yes (it's true), "No (it's false)"). I note also
>that {Qo'} was introduced in the Addendum, the same place that we find
>the redefinition of {tlhob}.
I tend to agree with you, especially on the HIja:ghobe' :: lu':Qo'
distinction. I think it's important that we remember what the differences
between these are and when to use which (I tried to catch those in Hamlet,
and indeed left a few "wrong" ones in because they make sense colloquially:
"Will you come with me?" "lu'." Technically should be "HIja'", since it
was a Y/N question, but since it's also... well, if not a request, at least
an indication of an option, "lu'" makes sense as a colloquial alternative.)
I also tend to agree regarding "yu'" and "tlhob." I try to use "yu'" for
asking questions and "tlhob" for requests (cf. demandi vs. peti in
Esperanto; lish'ol vs. l'vakesh in Hebrew; similar distinctions in gobs of
languages). It seems reasonable given their glosses. The trouble (as many
have noticed) is that the objects don't seem to be the same. Going
strictly by the glosses, "tlhob"'s object has to be the object requested,
and "yu'"'s the person asked (not the question). It's possible (likely?)
that there's some room for fuzzing here, like Krankor's view that an
object's and object, and "direct" and "indirect" tags do not apply strictly
in Klingon. Not sure, but I'd guess there's *some* room for leeway.
Qo' is not introduced in the addendum, though.
~mark
"toQDuj DoqDaq mayIntaH Hochma'!" -- vetlhpu'
(I really like this one, it's singable like the others, but awfully
catchy. The translation of the name of the group isn't so hot tho.)