tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 19 16:01:09 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: lut tlhaQ 'e' vItul

vIng Qov:

> lab SuStel:
> & jatlh jey'el:
> 
> & > veng tInDaq, qach jen HurDaq,
> &
> & An Ewok village? In Lothlorien? The Jetsons? We don't have a word 
> & for "tall." When you say {jen}, I imagine one of these places, not a 
> & tall building.
> 
> I don't have this problem.  I just see the part of the buiding which 
> *is* high and ignore the part underneath it.  HuD jen - it's 
> the pointy bits at the top I'm interested in, even though the 
> mountain itself starts at sea level. quS jen - could be a chair on 
> top of a table, could be a chair with especially long legs. nuv jen 
> doesn't work for me, though, unless the person is on stilts.  
> However, when I see "qach jen HurDaq" I think of someone outside a 
> high building on a window washing platform.  I'd say "qach jen 
> bIngDaq" -- and wait for SuStel to get pedantic: wulthDaq qar'a' SoH? 
> Qom qar'a' qach?

I would never say {wutlhDaq qar'a' SoH}.  I might say {wutlhDaq SoH qar'a'}.

However, I don't see what your problem is.  Why underground?  Why an 
earthquake?  I see {qach jen bIngDaq} and think "Wicket's swinging on a vine 
below his house," or "Elroy's on a jet scooter below his house."

> & > pujwI' jIvvaD qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'.
> & > To the ignorant weakling they seem mean and vicious.
> &
> & {qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'}. {-law'} doesn't mean that the *subject* of 
> & the sentence isn't sure of the validity of the statement, it means 
> & that the *speaker* isn't sure of it. Therefore, {qejlaw' 'ej 
> & naSlaw'} means "they were probably mean and vicious."
> 
> I hate this one. SuStel's argument *does* follow the literal word of 
> TKD, but the examples in TKD are all cases where the speaker and the 
> point of view of the sentence are the same.  A story in the third
> person isn't necessarily expressing the point of view of the author.
> "The child didn't want to speak to the terrifying policeman so he 
> hid in the safety of the park."  I don't think the policeman is 
> terifying and I know the park isn't safe. I'm writing from the point 
> of view of the child.

I happen to agree: if the speaker is TRYING to speak from the point of the 
view of the subject, then using {-law'} is fine.  But then, you can't go and 
use {-vaD} like that.  You can say {qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'}, or you can say 
{pujwI'vaD qej 'ej naS}, but saying {pujwI'vaD qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'} means that 
the SPEAKER is unsure, and having used {-vaD} it's no longer from the point of 
view of the weakling.

> SuvwI'pu' legh pujwI' jIv.  qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'
> 
> *could* well mean that I the writer of the sentence believe the 
> warriors to be mean and vicious, but I argue that it could be 
> translated "They seemed mean and vicious," with the time at and 
> person to whom they seemed that way being determined by the context.

I absolutely agree, and I'm sorry if I made myself

> & > Hegh qoHpu' neH HaghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'!
> & > Only fools die when warriors laugh!
> 
> lutlIj vItIv.
> 
> I don't think SuStel is wrong, just pedantic.  But I suspect pedagogy 
> and pedantic share a root. Go SuStel. How can one ignore the rules 
> if he doesn't know what they are?

And you used to be so nice . . .

I think I'll get on the MSN board and ask Okrand for a word for "sarcasm."

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97467.4

Back to archive top level