tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 31 05:49:19 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: double ways of seeing translation
- From: "Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: double ways of seeing translation
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:47:28 -0800
qoror writes:
(much material deleted)
> "Of course, I would have phoned them myself."
>
> I won't try to translate any of this stuff *except* the "Of course."
> Say you defy a lot of grammar and have him say:
> "-bej." ..or "definitely." But think. If this is Clipped Klingon,
> it actually means "Watch," or maybe "Just watch."
I can't go along with your basic premise here and simply ignore the grammar.
You're talking about using a suffix as a stand-alone item. This is why we
distinguish between "bound" and "free" morphemes.
I don't believe that Clipped Klingon allows for the use of suffixes by
themselves, but rather that what gets "clipped" are some or all of the
affixes from the free-standing roots.
A native English speaker would not indicate that an action occurred in the
past by simply uttering the typical suffix "-ed" (though to parallel your
point, a listener might infer he was speaking about Edward).
My point being that your "double ways" would only be seen as confusing or
ambiguous by someone who has no command or even familiarity with Klingon
morphology. There's simply no case.
Lawrence
(who's in a grumpy mood because it's a rainy monday)
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director :: The KLI is a nonprofit ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute :: tax exempt corporation ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA :: DaH HuchlIj'e' ghonob ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: [email protected] :: http://www.kli.org :: 215/836-4955 ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::