tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 30 23:10:11 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Thinking and compounding

I previously said:
>>I'm not aware that English uses "to be" too much, not any more than French
>>or Portuguese, two other languages with which I happen to be familiar. 
>>Perhaps tlhIngan Hol doesn't use it enough (perhaps MO planned it that way
>>just to give us something to do in our evenings!).
>

And the reply I got was:

>Well, let's see.  You used it twice in the above paragraph, and for both
>instances, I can find another verb which will convey the same or very
>similar meaning ("to know" for "to be aware" and "have knowledge" for "to be
>familiar").

So, that still doesn't indicate that the use of "to be" is TOO MUCH.

>tlhIngan Hol does not use it enough, because it DOES NOT HAVE IT.
>
>What???
>
>That's right.  We have a structure where we can compare two nouns together,
>but there is NO VERB "TO BE" in Klingon.  My proof?  Page 67, the first
>sentence under 6.3:
>
>        There is no verb corresponding to English "to be" in Klingon.
>
>If I remember my history correctly, yes, it WAS because Marc Okrand did not
>want "to be" being used all over the place, which is one reason why a number
>of people on the list (myself included!) will jump all over you if you
>nominalize a verb, and then use it in that pronoun-thing described in 6.3.
>Why not just use the verb as a VERB?  It gives more flavour to your
>sentences, and is usually shorter/more precise.
>
>So, no, it isn't that Klingon does not use "to be" enough; it is that
>English speakers (and yes, I am just as guilty of this as anyone else, so
>don't bother counting my uses of the verb "to be" in this post... I KNOW it
>will be high!) tend to over-use it--hey, it was the fist verb we learned,
>after all!  Klingon, on the other hand, doesn't even HAVE this verb, so when
>you want to express an English phrase to Klingon, you have to take care that
>you don't translate word-for-word, instead of concept-for-concept...

I think we basically agree -- it's just that we're misunderstanding each
other.  It was NOT my thesis that Klingon should have a verb "to be" or
that, if it existed, it should be used more; it was that the fact that we
use it more (I know, ANY use is more than in Klingon) is NOT repeat NOT an
indication that we use it too much!  That's why I made reference to French
and Portuguese -- being languages of similar origin (Indo-European), they,
too, use their equivalents of "to be" as often as does English. 
Therefore, I don't understand the criterion or criteria you are using for
the statement that "to be" is used "too much".

BTW, I know what MO said about "to be" in the dictonary, but shurely you
will agree that he fudged just a bit when he included a verb that means
"there is, there are", {tu'} (used with indefinite subject, {tu'lu'}).

Another BTW (this is linguistics in general, not Klingon specifically),
neither French nor Portuguese use "to be" when translating "there is,
there are" (Fr. { il y a }, Port. { tem }).

Qapla'

qrlIH veStaySortlhIH Sogh la'       Lt. Commander K'rlikh Vestai-Shor-Klikh
tlhIngan wo' Duj qIj leng rawI'     Commanding Officer, IKV Black Odyssey
Qanpu' pogh DuQ cha'DIch ra wI'     Deputy C.O., Mailed Glove Squadron

a.k.a.

--
Denny Shortliffe

Back to archive top level