tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 03 16:16:00 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Okrand on /jatlh/



At 02:08 PM 7/3/97 -0700, charghwI' wrote:
>According to Terrence Donnelly:
>> 
>> So it looks like charghwI' was mostly right about {jatlh}.  
>
>Not really. It looks like charghwI' was COMPLETELY right about
>jatlh. charghwI' was PERFECTLY right about {jalth}. Okrand's
>explanation was precisely descriptive of my understanding of
>jatlh which I formed by looking at Okrand's examples in canon.
>

ghaytan bIHemqu'. 8+)

>> But I'm still
>> wondering about something.  According to the first part of MO's reply,
all the
>> following should be valid.
>> 
>>    tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh.       I speak Klingon
>>    SoQ vIjatlh.                I speak (~give) a speech.
>>    mu' vIjatlh.                I say a word.
>>    mu'tlhegh vIjatlh.           I say a sentence.
>>      (He did say the object of {jatlh} could be a language a lecture, or
>>        _whatever_).
>
>qay'be'. I agree.
>

My only real point in this post was to draw attention to that "_whatever_" that
MO slipped in his explantion.  I really have no trouble accepting the thing
which is spoken as an object and direct quotations as separate sentences.  I
think of the behavior of {jatlh} like a spectrum: at one end you have
actual objects and subject-object prefixes, at the other end, you have
separate sentences and no-object prefixes.  If Okrand had left it at that,
all would be well.  But by slipping in "or whatever" as possible
objects of {jatlh}, I think he leaves the door open to all sorts of
interpretations of what happens to {jatlh} in the middle of the spectrum.  My
sentences were examples of the confusion that could result.  I bet some
creative newbies could come up with much more bizzarre conclusions that mine.

>
>> So, you could say
>> 
>>     <tlhIngan tIgh> vIlaD
>
>Well, actually, no, you can't, if you are trying to say that
>you read the book. {tlhIngan tIgh} is not a book.  It is a
>title of a book. The way you've written it, you are stating
>that you have read the words {tlhIngan tIgh}.
>

qechlIj vIlaj.

>> So, consider my last sentence:
>> 
>>     mu'tlhegh vIjatlh.         I say a sentence.
>
>Fine.
>
>> Using apposition, could I specify the sentence I actually said:
>
>No, you can't. Direct quotation is a specialized grammatical
>construction. You cannot build your own specialized grammar
>just because you want to and then expect anybody else to agree
>with you. Okrand was very clear here and you have ignored him.
>

Actually, and this is my point, Okrand wasn't _very_ clear;  he was very
clear until he inserted that "whatever".


>It doesn't look like all that challenging a puzzle, really. He
>has remained quite consistent to these new explanations
>throughout all canon use. Now, he more explicitly explains the
>rules he has been using all along.
>

I would like a clearer explanation of what words (or phrases?) can be objects
of {jatlh}.  "Whatever" is a little too vague for me.

>
>charghwI'
>
-- ter'eS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711



Back to archive top level