tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 17 08:33:56 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: mu'tlheghmey Qatlh



According to Qov:
> 
> At 16:27 97-10-16 -0700, Qermaq wrote:
> }ghItlh Qov:
> }
> }>> Before we celebrate our victory, we need to defeat the last enemy.
> }yaymajmo' maloppa' jagh Qav wIjeynIS
> }Because we don't know if we can celebrate something, this is the safest
> }translation.
> 
> va. bIyepqu'.  vay' wIloplaHbe' net muchpa' Dochmey vIlop jIH.  It is safer,
> but if we refused to use any verb as transitive before we had an example we
> would be paralysed.  I will not mark anyone's work wrong only for that reason.

Meanwhile, all the canon I've found on this uses it
transitively:

(tran) S31: {HeghDI' tlhIngan SuvwI' pagh tlhIngan SuvwI'
HoHlu'DI' Heghtay lulop latlh tlhInganpu'.}
"As soon as a Klingon warrior dies, or as soon as someone kills
a Klingon warrior, other Klingons celebrate the Death Ritual."
S32: {nentay loptaHvIS tlhIngan potlh tlhIngan 'oy'naQ'e'.}
"While a Klingon celebrates the Rite of Ascension, the Klingon
painstick is important."

> }>Qermaq, mu'tlheghvam DaqontaHvIS nuq Daqel SoH?
> }
> }As the guards concentrated on my strange clothing, the men who were eating
> }in the old restaurant enjoyed the guard's confusion.
> }
> }I meant to type guards', not guard's, but my translation makes that
> }unimportant.
> }
> }SutwIj Huj lubuStaHvIS 'avwI'pu', mIS 'avwI' 'e' lutIv Qe' ngo'Daq Sopbogh
> }loDpu'.
> 
> Did I not send my correction to the list? 
> 
> What does {Qe' ngo'Daq Sopbogh loDpu'} mean?
> "in the old restaurant that the men were eating" 
> "the old restaurant where the men were eating"  
> "the men who were eating in the old restaurant"
> 
> I'm trying to tell you that marking the location of a relative clause with
> {-Daq} in this manner is suspect.  You think you are saying "the men who
> were eating in the old restaurant" but you are most probably attributing the
> enjoyment to the restaurant, if you are not saying gibberish.

I disagree. I thought Okrand once said that the head noun of a
relative clause had to be subject or object of the {-bogh}ed
verb. That's why we can't say "the ship in which I fled". We
can't say, "the old restaurant in which the men ate" for the
same reason. The only thing this could mean is "the men who ate
in the old restaurant."

I think Qermaq accomplished saying exactly what he meant to say.

> }The thing I dislike about your translation,
> }
> }>SutwIj Huj lubuStaHvIS 'avwI'pu', Qe' ngo'Daq 'avwI' mIS'e' lutIv
> }>SoplI'bogh loDpu'.
> }
> }is that it seems to imply that the guards were in the restaurant too. In
> }fact, the English gives no location for them, only for the men eating. 

When I read this, I assume that the enjoying is happening in
the restaurant. Generally speaking, the locative tends to
describe the verb. Sometimes this is not the case, but usually
it is.

> Do you think it implies they are both in the restaurant?  I decided it was
> ambiguous and unimportant.  One could write {Qe'vo' 'avwI' mIS'e' lutIv} to
> be specific about the guards not being in the restaurant.

This sounds very strange. The action of enjoying does not imply
movement away from something implied by {-vo'}. Perhaps it
would be clearer as: 

{Qe' HurDaq bejbogh 'avwI'pu' mIS'e' lutIv}

Here, I could see arguments for {-Daq} or {-vo'}. They watch
from, but you don't enjoy from.

> }like the -lI' suffix, though it might assign too much importance to that
> }part of the sentence. 
> 
> Without {-lI'} or {-taH} (I couldn't tell which was appropriate from the
> English) you get the men who ate, or who eat, or who will eat, and lose the
> idea that eating as an ongoing process during the other action of the sentence.

qay'be'. I think it is slightly better with {-lI'}, but I don't
see it as worthy of great focus. It works without it as well.
The continuity is not a focal point of the meaning.

> }I understand the -'e' on mIS, but its use isn't
> }hindsight-proof - is it "the guard's CONFUSION"?
> 
> Doesn't matter.  There isn't really anything else in the clause for it to be
> drawing focus from.  It is "the guard's *confusion*, as opposed to the
> confused guard.
> 
> }That's why I used a sentence-as-object construction. This sets up a separate
> }sentence for the locative to refer to which deals only with the men.

I think this works well. Good point.

> }Recasting the object "the guard's confusion" into the sentence-as-object
> }"The guard is confused" is key to what I was thinking as I wrote it.
> }
> }The one debatable point is this - can locatives be used in a relative clause
> }sentence at all? This is not a "ship in which he fled" problem, but is my
> }translation clear? I think it is - let me know!
> 
> It is not 'ship in which he fled.' It's a little of the 'cat in the hat'
> problem, either complicated or alleviated, depending on your point of view,
> by the relative clause.  We know that nouns in a relative clause can have
> the {-Daq} suffix, from the proverb about {meQtaHbogh qachDaq}.  I believe
> that in the same article where Qanqor speculated that the head noun in a
> relative clause could be marked with {-'e'}, he also suggested that another
> type 5 suffix could do the job, if appropriate.  Don't remember if MO's
> acceptance of the technique included the {-Daq} or not.

I do think this is a messy example. I wish Okrand would have
either not written it, or written more to make this clearer.
The example directly opposes what he has said about relative
clauses.

> I wouldn't say {Qe'Daq SoplI'bogh loDpu'} unless I was talking about the
> restaurant.

And I wouldn't say it unless I was talking about the men.
Perhaps we would both be satisfied with {Qe'Daq SoplI'bogh
loDpu''e'}?

> Qov     [email protected]
> Beginners' Grammarian                 

Sorry to come across in opposition here. I'm massively
impressed with the BG work so far. In this instance, I simply
like that which bothers you.

Not that this was a goal of mine, mind you... {{:)>

charghwI'


Back to archive top level