tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 06 15:09:49 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: semiotic nonsense for beginners
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: semiotic nonsense for beginners
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 06:26:39 UT
On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 8:23 AM, [email protected] on behalf of Dr.
Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:
> I thought I'd
> ask for some interpretations of examples of semiotic continua. [...] I'm
posting them >here to the KLBC so
> that first SuStel, and then anyone else, can take a shot.
Wow! All this attention! Okay, but I don't think I want to try to order
them; I don't really follow that too well.
> 'ovchuq qeyleS molor je.
> Kahless and Molor competed with one another.
Having nothing to do with the main topic, I have a problem with this. The
literal translation would be "Kahless [with a Klingon {I}!] and Molor compete
each other." I feel fairly certain that a Klingon would have as much trouble
accepting your sentence as we all do the English. Given that {'ov} is glossed
"compete," I don't see why we can't just say,
'ov qeylIS molor je.
> lujbe'chugh qeyleS Qap'a' molor?
> If Kahless did not lose, did Molor win?
> lujHa'chugh molar Qap'a' qeyleS?
> If Molor (un-/mis-/de-)won, did Kahless win?
You mean, "If Molor (un-/mis-/de-)lost, did Kahless win?"
Okay. {-Ha'}, meaning either a change of state undoing something, or doing
something incorrectly. We have to either mean "unlose," or "lose
incorrectly." The second doesn't really make any sense to me, so we have to
concentrate on the first one.
"Unlosing" to me sounds like reversing one's fortune just before failure. Or,
regaining one's honor (or maybe, score) by winning one after losing one.
My guess is that context will have to tell. Unfortunately, the only context
is {'ov qeylIS molor je}, so there's no way to tell. Let me make some up for
example's sake:
vaghlogh 'ov qeylIS molor je.
Kahless and Molor compete five times.
cha'logh Qap qeylIS.
Kahless wins twice.
leS cha' 'ej Suvrupqa' molor.
The two rest and Molor is ready to fight again.
Suvrupbe' qeylIS.
Kahless is not ready to fight.
DaH lujHa'choH molor.
Now Molor begins to "unfail." (He is pulling his failure so far out of its
pit, and beginning to regin his honor.)
cha'logh Qap molor.
Molor wins twice.
DaH ghoS lupwI' lIghtaHbogh Qa' tInqu''e'. Hoch beQmoHchu' 'oH 'ej Hegh
Hoch. rIn lut.
(Listening in, jajlo'?)
> lujHa'be'chugh qeyleS Qap'a' molor?
> If Kahless didn't (un-/mis-/de-)win, did Molor win?
You've really said, "If Kahless didn't (un-/mis-/de-)lose, did Molor win?"
If we continue with the context from above, we must be meaning that if Kahless
doesn't get out of HIS losing streak, Molor will win.
> Suvchuq qang qor je.
> Kang and Kor battled.
> rInta'DI' yIn qang 'ej Hegh qor.
> When they had finished, Kang was alive and Kor was dead.
> rInta'DI' yInbe' qang 'ej Heghbe' qor.
> When they had finished, Kang was not alive and Kor was not dead.
> rInta'DI' yInHa' qang 'ej HeghHa' qor.
> When they had finished, Kang was (un-/mis-/de-)alive and Kor was
(un-/mis-/de-)
> dead.
> rInta'DI' yInHa'be' qang 'ej HeghHa'be' qor.
> When they had finished, Kang was not (un-/mis-/de-)alive and Kor was not
> (un-/mis-/de-) dead.
> yInHa'be'chugh qang vaj HeghHa'be''a'?
> If Kang was not (un-/mis-/de-)alive was he then not (un-/mis-/de-) dead?
I don't think {-Ha'} applies to this situation at all. {yInHa'} means either
"unlive, undo living," or "live incorrectly." {yInHa'} might be equivalent to
{Hegh}, but I don't think so. {HeghHa'} seems to mean "come back from the
dead," which is certainly not the same as {yIn}!
It's kinda late for me; any other ideas?
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97178.0