tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:23:54 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Time to call the {ghoS}tbusters?
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Time to call the {ghoS}tbusters?
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:25:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:50:30 -0800 (PST) "Anthony.Appleyard"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> [Time to call the {ghoS}tbusters]
> In the course of writing briefly in Klingon about a storm at sea recently I
> ran into an ambiguity. For "of a ship, to travel" the word seems to be
> {ghoS}, which TKD defines as (1) "approach", (2) "go from", (3) "proceed",
> (4) "follow course", (5) "thrust". This all-too-inclusive portmanteau word
> for travelling seems to be to be liable to ambiguities.
Just think of it as refering to travel along a course which is
identified by the object of {ghoS}. Most often, this is the
destination, but it doesn't have to be. It merely has to be the
object which identifies the course.
Often when I am getting in my car after a day at work, I tell
myself: DaH juH vIghoS. I'm heading home. To me, that is more
meaningful than {juHDaq jIjaH.} I don't merely go home. I'm in
my car and I have a path to follow. There is a specified course
I'm engaged in traveling along. I'm quite alive and experiencing
many thoughts and events while on this path.
Live is a path, not a destination. It has a destination, but it
is a path. The verb {ghoS} respects this.
> (A) The Chambers Dictionary of (5) as a verb seems to centre on "move
> forward against resistance by pushing obstacles aside or back". This is
> different from simple unopposed movement as in (3) etc.
I think you are digging into details so far as to miss the
overall sense of the meaning of the word. It's one of those
tree/forest things. You are examining the bark of a tree and
wondering why you are not fully understanding the forest.
> (B) TKD lists three transitive meanings, i.e. that {X ghoS} could mean (1)
> "he approaches X", (2) "he goes from X", (4) "he follows the course X".
> Of these, (2) clashes seriously with (1) and (4).
Not really. What is meant by "course" in 4? That which one
approaches and that which one goes from are both elements of the
course. The course needs to be called something. My current home
was once a country store. Route 690 goes right by it. When the
911 rules came into effect, all roads needed names, so they
named this one Country Store Road. My once and future home is
Shannon Farm. The road going to it is called Shannon Farm Drive.
If one is travelling along Shannon Farm Drive, one is
approaching Shannon Farm, going away from Shannon Farm or
otherwise moving along the course to/from Shannon Farm.
*Shannon Farm* ghoSlu'.
> I feel that meaning (2)
> should be deleted, and "he goes from X" translated as {Xvo' ghoS}.
Well, we do pretty much use {-vo'} whenever we want to express
(2), but to delete the meaning leaves us with no place to
express (2). The place we go away from is still on the course we
are following.
Because of definition 2, if I say {*Country Store*vo' vIghoS}
you can figure that I'm on Country Store Road heading away from
the Country Store. If I say {*Country Store*vo' jIjaH}, I might
just as well be running aimlessly across a field somewhere,
generally away from the Country Store.
> (1) and (4) clash if X is a possible route and also a possible place, as in
> {<Gulf of Aqaba> ghoS Duj} in my storm at sea message. OK, this ambiguity did
> not arise much in Okrand's experience where spaceships' courses were almost
> invariably either number-mark-number through empty space or towards a star
> system. But here on Earth how to tell whether {Langton Road ghoS} means "he
> goes towards Langton Road" or "he goes along Langton Road"? I suppose that IF
> he is at L.R. before, THEN {ghoS} = "go along", ELSE {ghoS} = "go towards".
Nope. It means he goes along Langton Road, most likely toward
Langton, if the road is named after a place called Langton.
> But that is confusing and relies on the reader / hearer knowing beforehand
> whether the subject of {ghoS} was at L.R. before, which isn't always so.
Nope. Langton Road is a course, not a place. As a place, it is a
very long, thin place connecting other places in a manner
conducive to travel between those places. That is not a typical
definition of a destination.
> Translating (1) as {XDaq ghoS} to distinguish from (4) causes ambiguity
> between "he goes [all the way] to X" and "he goes [part of the way] towards X
> [but does not intend to reach the place X]", e.g. obeying {HotlhwI' HuDDaq
> yIghoS} "go to Scanner Hill" instead of {HotlhwI' HuD yIghoS} "go towards
> Scanner Hill" would end up with the ship ripping its bottom out on the rocks
> offshore from {HotlhwI' HuD qoj} instead of going the intended distance and
> stopping safely away at sea.
That is a very interesting perspective. I never would have
considered that meaning had I studied this for the rest of my
life. Instead, I merely see the use of {-Daq} with {ghoS} as
marked, somewhat improper grammar, but close enough that in
informal speech I can avoid the urge to bludgeon the speaker and
point out their error. I'll just wince and continue to listen.
> We need different words for "go to" and "go towards" and "go along". I don't
> trust context to sort out all ambiguities. It is not wise to rely on Miss
> Context to be the only receptionist keeping out all such undesirables.
You seem to be more confused about this than most other Klingon
speakers who have commented on this. Ahh, but I forgot. As
illustrated by your singular ability to fully understand QAO,
you understand this langauge better than the rest of us, so
since you are the only one confused by {ghoS}, it must be vague
and confusing and the rest of us delude ourselves into thinking
we understand what it means.
charghwI'