tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 04 11:57:09 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Mole's tale

Excellent story, by the way.

According to Scott Murphy:
> 
> Why Mole Lives Underground, a Cherokee tale
... 
> *** ADDENDUM - In defense of Question as Object usage

There IS no defense for this.

> You probably noticed that I use the sentence "chay' qaSpu' 'e' luSovbe'".
> I do this, knowing how controversial it is at the moment.  However, I
> would argue that users of a language have a right to innovate new usages
> when they can find no other efficient way to say what they mean.  "-bogh"
> would certainly not work here, as I am not referencing a noun but an
> action.  

Oh yeah?

wanI'vam qaSmoHpu'bogh ghu''e' luSovbe'.

Is this really all that difficult? Do you really believe that
it does not express the meaning you want?

> As a linguist I am biased toward descriptive rather than
> prescriptive approaches to grammar.  I am also aware of certain things
> which Klingon is missing.  I feel that the only way in which Klingon can
> become a fully expressive language is for users of it to innovate
> constructions where they become necessary.  

I agree with this in general, though in this specific instance,
I honestly believe that you are simply wrong. You are trying to
use a question word as a relative pronoun. Klingon doesn't have
relative pronouns and doesn't need them because of the relative
clause construction. Question As Object is misguided and wholly
unnecessary in this case. It also doesn't really work. Just try
translating your sentence:

"They did not know that how had this happened?"

If you try to pack the whole question into the {'e'} it really
doesn't work.

> Using question words as
> objects of "'e'" constructions is a natural way to express certain ideas.

If you are speaking English, yes. That's because the question
word sounds exactly like a relative pronoun IN ENGLISH, so it
seems very natural to use it this way.

> If it weren't, nobody would be doing it.  

Well, a lot of English speakers were going gonzo with {-ghach}
a few years ago because it seemed like a natural way to express
a lot of noun-centric English ideas. This is a VERY weak
argument.

> There exists a possibility that
> Klingon will evolve into two dialects: one based on canon and Okrand's
> explanations, and one based on the actual, practical usage.  This isn't a
> bad thing.  

This is also an old, weak argument. You will likely not find a
lot of support for it here.

> It simply adds to the flavor of the language, i.e. the
> development of a formal/colloquial dichotomy.  OK, now I've said my piece.
> I submit this translation of a Cherokee legend for corrections and such.
> Thanks.

I very much enjoyed the story. I did not enjoy the addendum.

> Scott
> 
> ******************************
> * Scott Murphy               *
> * University of Kentucky     *
> * email: [email protected] *
> ******************************
> 
> 

charghwI'

Back to archive top level