tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 24 10:22:47 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]



In article <[email protected]>, "William H.
Martin" <[email protected]> writes
>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'.}

That's what I thought.  I felt that I was simply pre-empting the
question of someone "Will you do that again?" and I was just simply
stating "No, I won't do that again" or some variation upon that (I
didn't use the "No" but, whatever).

>
>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.

Would it also that possible to say:

be'vetlh vISuchlaHbe'

I cannot visit that woman again.  Which seems like it would help remove
some of the ambiguity.  If you won't do something because it's
impossible, say you cannot do it.  If you won't do something because you
don't want to, use *-Qo'*

Seems sensible to me.

> 
>> 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.
> 

Ah, forgot.  But it was the best example I could think of for the idea
Qov meant.

>> 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.
> 

Yeah, that nasty pronoun thing ;)

>> 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'}.
> 

I didn't really want to use 'e' because that meant that I had to think
up another sentence to help it all make sense.  My sentence was supposed
to stand on it's own, more or less.  Like when you walk out of an
interview and say "Well, I know I've blown that" even though nobody has
asked you about it yet.

>> 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.
>

So, if I want to say "that" on it's own, then I should probably just not
use a pronoun then

So, instead of saying "I've blown that" after an interview, I'd say (in
Klingon) "I've blown that interview"

*interview*vetlh vIlujpu'

I have failed that interview 
(in the perfective for Have done something or will have done something)

I suppose I don't need the pu' and just simply say I failed that
interview.  I know I don't have any indication of time but hopefully the
context would make it clear.  (Like, I've just walked out of the
interview room).

>> 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.
> 

Oh, obviously.  I just wanted to know whether it was at all possible.
Actually, looking at jIHDaj, there's a song in Britain by (I think) "M
People" a few years back called "You've got to search for the hero
inside yourself".  If I was searching for the hero inside myself, I
reckon I could use that since as the klingon would go

inside-myself hero I-search
jIHDaj Sub vISucH

Which seems to fit with Okrand's usage of direct and indirect objects in
KGT (like latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr vIqang - I (subject) pour the cold
bloodwine (object) into another glass (indirect object, I think)).

Although the entire phrase is too idiomatic to translate (it would
probably translate as "Be courageous!" or something), I can imagine
there being times to use it.

>> -- 
>> 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..."?
>

All the time! }};)

Anyway, it's only fictional.  And until I worked out how to say it, I
never realised your name was formed the same way (one who conquers, or
conqueror from KGT).

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

-- 
tlhIbwI'


Back to archive top level