tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 01 15:11:07 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Buy me a drink
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Buy me a drink
- Date: Wed, 1 Jan 97 22:33:31 UT
December 31, 1996 10:03 PM, jatlh HurghwI':
> >> I realize that there was a little discussion about this recently, but I'm
> >> still not comfortable with <jItlhutlh 'e' yIDIl>. To me this means "Buy
that
> >> I drink."
> >
> >{DIl} is "pay for," not "buy." There's a bit of a difference there.
>
> I fail to see it, at least as far as meaning for translation goes. If you
> buy something, you pay for it, and visa versa.
The difference between {je'} and {DIl} is that the latter emphasizes the fact
that the thing bought has a price, which the former merely states that an
exchange of some sort has taken place. When you "buy" something, you do
indeed "pay for" something, but the difference we're talking about is the
topic of the sentence, not the act itself.
> I think you are reading a
> "pay for X so that Y" into <DIl> which doesn't exist. It's just "pay for X."
No, I'm not. Here's an example using some other words:
jItlhutlh 'e' yImev.
Stop me from drinking.
This is one sentence that you will certainly accept. How exactly does it
differ from {jItlhutlh 'e' yIDIl}? You like it, because the English
translation comes out nice and neat when you use the formulaic translation
usually used with {'e'}: "Stop that I drink." But {DIl} is "pay for," which
needs two English words to translate, and this makes it messier. It sounds
funny when you translate it into English, but it is smooth in Klingon.
You say it's the drink itself that is paid for, and not the act of drinking?
Why must that be true? That seems like another case of noun-oriented
thinking.
> >{'e'} refers to the entire previous sentence as an object. This makes it
act
> >like a noun.
>
> Correct, but my point was that it refers to the _sentence_, not the act
> itself, as a sentence/phrase/idea. You can use {'e'} to assert that the
> sentence is true, or believed by you, or understood, or whatever, but one
> can't "buy" (read "pay for") an idea, or sentence.
You don't "stop" a sentence or idea, either, but you can say {jItlhutlh 'e'
yImev}.
> >{(jItlhutlh) yIDIl} is what we're striving for here; {jItlhutlh} is the
object
> >of {yIDIl}. "Pay for --" The thing that is being paid for is going in the
> >blank. In this case, I don't see why {jItlhutlh} is wrong. If I said
> >{tlhutlhlI'ghachwIj yIDIl} you wouldn't have a problem.
>
> I might, although less of one. They have completely different meanings, for
> one thin.
They do not have "completely different meanings." They have subtly different
meanings. One is focusing on the liquid in the cup, and the other is focusing
on the act of ingestion.
> You don't pay for the act of drinking, you pay for my drink. If
> you were to pay for the act of me drinking, you would be hiring me so that
> you could watch me drink (whatever the reason).
I'm not implying *any* reason. *You* are. Either the reason is "in order
that I drink," or you make it "in order that I watch you drink." The
*Klingon* sentence has no such implication.
> >jItlhutlh 'e' yIDIl.
> >I drink. Pay for that.
>
> This is the same problem.
This is the same sentence. I was simply restating it for emphasis, and
restating my translation so that you'd see that I wasn't reading a purpose
clause in there.
>You can't "buy" (read "pay for") the fact that I
> drink. You wouldn't even if you could. You pay for the drink itself. If you
> want to say "Pay _in order_ that I drink," you could use the phrase I
> mentioned earlier. It appears to me that you are reading something into the
> combination of <'e'> and <DIl> that is simply not there. The translation
> speaks for itself; it makes no sense. "Pay for that I drink."
NO!!! You cannot say that if the translation makes no sense, the Klingon is
not right. There are sometimes things which simply *cannot* be translated
smoothly! For example, trI'Qal's joke at qep'a' wejDIch: {<nock* *knock*.>
<SaH 'Iv?>}, or my own recent one: {HuDDu' jojDaq ngech tu'lu'.}
What I think *you're* reading into this is that you seem to think that the
payment will be given to the person who performs the action being paid for.
This is untrue. I could say {jItlhutlh jabwI'vaD 'e' yIDIl} "Pay the waiter
for me to drink."
Anyway, there's still nothing wrong with {jItlhutlhmeH HIq yIDIl}. Use it if
you like. Until Okrand tells me that {DIl} is used only to pay for *things*
(which is not impossible, but is not evidenced anywhere), I'll also believe
that there is no reason it can't be part of an {'e'} sentence.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97004.6