tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 21 18:21:38 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James]



On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 02:58:11 -0800 (PST) James Coupe 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Qov
> <[email protected]> writes
> >This is my peeve of the week, so I want everyone to get it before I am
> >through. Don't look at the word "won't" and automatically sub in {-Qo'}.
> >Ask yourself: is this sentence stating that the subject refuses to perform
> >this action, or simply stating that the ubject isn't going to perform it in
> >the future?  {-Qo'} is for refusal and {-be'} is for statement of fact or
> >prediction.
> 
> Well, my Klingon isn't good enough to translate this just yet but:
> 
> If I had just had a very bad experience which I didn't want to repeat, I
> could say "I won't do that again."  Because it isn't a refusal and is a
> prediction for the future, I'd use *-be'*, right?

Okay, please do not be confused by a difference of opinion 
between Qov and myself, but since I'm substituting for her, *I* 
get to give MY advice, okay?

I think Qov has gone a little overboard on this one. She has an 
excellent point, but carries it a bit too far. If you had a bad 
experience and you did not WISH to repeat it, {-Qo'} would be 
fine because the reason you won't repeat it is that you refuse 
to repeat it. Let's say that a woman I've been dating was very 
rude to me.  "I won't visit that woman again." {be'vetlh 
vISuchQo'.}

Meanwhile, if she died, "I won't visit that woman again," 
becomes {be'vetlh vISuchbe'.} I'm not refusing to visit her 
again. I have lost the opportunity to do so. In the future, I 
will not visit her again.
 
> And if I was on the bridge of my ship and the Captain gave me an order
> which I believed was cowardly or something and I wanted to refuse it,
> I'd say "I won't do that" which would be translated with *-Qo'*, yes?

Yes. In fact you could just use the word {Qo'}. That is what it 
is for.
 
> Just having a go at them (after all, how else will I learn?), the first
> would be:
> 
> 'oHvetlh vIta'be'qa'
> (it with a that suffix, then accomplish (do) with an I-it prefix, qa'
> (type 3) for again and be' as a rover for won't)

I really don't like that suffix on that pronoun. "I will not 
accomplish that it again." Try {Qu'vetlh} instead. Otherwise, 
you did quite well.
 
> And the second would be:
> 
> 'oHvetlh vIta'Qo'
> 
> (it with a that suffix again, and then just simply accomplish with an I-
> it prefix and Qo' for refusal).

Again, choose a noun to represent something one accomplishes. 
{Qu'} is a good choice.
 
> I think that *'oHvetlh* would be acceptable translation for that,
> because *'e'* doesn't apply and neither does *net* (I think), but I'm
> quite likely wrong.

There are some cases where, in conversation, you might use {'e'} 
to refer to the sentence someone else just said. We have a canon 
example of that in ST6 where the ambassador's daughter makes a 
reference to a sentence someone else just said by using {'e'}.
 
> The only thing I can think of is that, in the second instance, whether
> you would say "that" in Klingon.  

I think you are getting a little fixated on translating the word 
"that". Think about your whole sentence and its meaning. If you 
become to attached to each word in a sentence, you will force 
yourself into grammar that does not serve to translate your 
meaning.

In other words, when you see that you have a problem with the 
word "that", consider the whole sentence again to decide how 
important the meaning of that word is. There may be a way of 
expressing that meaning that better fits Klingon. In this case, 
the "that" you want is something you accomplish. So, what does 
one accomplish? One accomplishes tasks. What is the word for 
"task"? It doesn't matter that the word "task" did not exist in 
your English. It was implied. In English, "that" is a pronoun. 
In Klingon, "that" is a noun suffix, so you need to express the 
noun to use it. "That" is also a pronoun {'e'}, but it is highly 
specialized in its use. If the "that" you want to translate 
doesn't fit the restricted {'e'} definition, you need an 
explicit noun to place the {-vetlh} suffix to.

> The write up of *-vetlh* seems to
> imply that I would more likely use *-vam* because it's what the Captain
> has just this second been talking about, rather than something which has
> already occured (as in the first situation).  Thinking about it, maybe
> they should both be *-vam* because they would both, most likely, be what
> was just being talked about which is what *-vam* is supposed to be used
> for.  But then it's translation as this and *-vetlh* as that are
> inconsistent with English speaking but so is quite a lot of Klingon so
> that isn't too much of a problem - just difficult to get used to.

I think either {-vam} or {-vetlh} would work here.
 
> And I think you can treat pronouns as normal nouns and add suffixes to
> them but, again, I don't know.  I can't see it specified in TKD anywhere
> (maybe it is in the Third Edition };)

You can add suffixes to pronouns, but you cannot do so 
mindlessly. Pronouns are not quite nouns. They function as 
nouns, except when they are functioning as verbs and some noun 
suffixes really don't work on pronouns. Type 4 noun suffixes 
singularly do not work with pronouns. I mean, how would you 
translate {jIHDaj} or {SoHvam}? It just doesn't work.
 
> -- 
> tlhIbwI'
> 
> (and being constantly self depreciated isn't such a bad thing - it might help to
> remind me not to get smug)

Do you start your diary entries with, "Sorry to bother you 
again, but..."?

charghwI', ru' taghwI' pabpo'
Temporary Beginner's Grammarian, December 20-30




Back to archive top level