tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 10 08:56:46 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC: Old "Kung Fu" phrase
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: KLBC: Old "Kung Fu" phrase
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:56:50 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 9 Apr 1997 18:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Carey and/or Bryce
Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> >Most of the rest is looking good, until you get to the verb {jatlh}.
> >Before I go on with this, though, let me ask you: why do you even want to
> >mention "talking"? The original isn't about what you can say, but about
> what
> >you have learned.
>
> I was wishing to convey the image of being able to claim that you have
> learned great knowledge. In other words, "when you can walk across the
> sands and not leave a footprint, then you can say (i.e.,claim) that you
> have learned great knowledge." But I see your point and since I don't know
> of an alternative way of conveying that message, I'm leaving it out of my
> next draft.
Consider using other tools of the language to convey this same
meaning. Verbs in Klingon can, unlike English, indicate
certainty with a simple suffix. -- vaj bIghojbejta'! This lone
verb conveys as much meaning as a whole phrase in English. A
couple phrases, actually... You indicate the certainty of the
learning and the sense of accomplishment, all in one word, and
you don't need to turn the verb relating to the act of learning
into a noun, as English prefers.
God, I love this language!
> >The only problem here is that Klingon seems to lack a good way to express
> "if
> >and only if" in this instance.
Untrue. You simply have to go through a different logical
construction. "A if and only if B" means exactly the same thing
as "(A and B) xor (not A and not B)". Klingon may lack an
expression for "only if", since {neH} seems to mean "merely"
rather than "exclusively" when applied to verbs, but Klingon HAS
an "exclusive or", unlike English, so it can express some logic
more clearly than English.
Qu'vam Data' 'ej bIghojbejta' pagh Qu'vam Data'be' 'ej
bIghojbejta'be'!
But then, this is not likely what you wish to imply. It sounds
as if the only measure of great knowledge is this act. Is that
what you really mean?
You might mean that accomplishing this act proves great
knowledge. That would be the simple "if then". Or you might mean
that without this element, you cannot achieve great knowledge,
but one can still achieve this act and fail to have great
knowledge. The act is a necessary element of the knowledge,
but not a whole equivalent. We are talking about the
difference between {tob} and {Daj} here. "If and only if" = tob.
"only if" = {Daj}. That "only if" can be expressed as an "if not
A then not B", which Klingon can easily express.
Qu'vetlh Data'laHbe'chugh vaj bIghojbejta'be'.
Or, in this case, since there is already an implied negative to
be cancelled out:
DebDaq DughochlaHchugh vay' vaj bIghojchu'ta'be'.
I minored in philosophy with a focus in logic. It comes in
handy, sometimes. reH Qubrup Qub'wI'a'!
> Tell me about it. I thought I was going to go crazy trying to convey "if
> and only if". I tried to work <'e'> as a type 5 noun suffix into the mix,
> but I couldn't figure out how to do it. Maybe Okrand's new book will help. :)
I sure hope not. That is, I hope it does not encourage that sort
of contortion.
> Well, anyway, here's my next draft. Tell me what you think.
>
> lam QeyHa'Daq bIyItlaHchugh 'ej yav gItlhbe'chugh qamlij, Sov'a' Daghajta'.
I have an opinion, but will only remark after the grammarian has
had a go at it, if he doesn't merely say what I would have said,
in which case, I won't.
> batlh bIHeghjaj!
'ej batlh bIyInjaj!
> Banzai
charghwI'