tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 26 05:23:26 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "you will die without honor"
>Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
>
>ghItlh ghunchu'wI', charghwI':
>
>>>> But remember the holiday proverb from PK:
>>>> {Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'}
>>>> "Eat everything or you will die without honor."
>>>
>>>I'm not sure that the English translation is not simply
>?>>intentionally inaccurate in order to span the customs of those
>>>it is translated for. I think Klingon Moms are actually saying,
>>>"If you don't eat everything, you won't die honorably." Hegh
>>>Hoch net Sov. batlh Heghlu' pagh batlhHa' Heghlu'. batlh
>>>Heghbe'lu'chugh vaj batlhHa' Heghlu'ba'.
>>
>>
>>I don't buy it. According to your earlier objection, {batlh bIHeghbe'}
>>would have to imply that you don't die, and your "not dying" is done
>>honorably. The apparently correct interpretation, however, is that
>>"dying with honor" is the thing that is not happening. The {-be'} is
>>negating the entire phrase *including the adverbial element*.
>
>-be' follows the concept being negated, according to TKD p. 46. Then there
>is an example showing how what is negated is different when the rover's
>position is changed.
>
>Armed with this knowledge, batlh bIHegh means "You honorably die." and
>batlh bIHeghbe' would get the reading "You, honorably, do not die."
>bIHeghbe' means You do not die! batlh cannot change this with the rules we
>have. wej and not could (but seem meaningless when used with a negating
>suffix like 'be- or -Qo'), but batlh cannot.
>
>I write this example off as a non-grammatical unique little variant
>construction. I cannot accept changing the basic rules governing
>interpretation of verb suffixes based on one canonic example which shows
>variation.
I'm more with... I think it's ghunchu'wI'? I lose track of who's saying
what. I find this sentence *does* imply that -be' can negate an entire
phrase, not just the verb to which it is attached. If only because
otherwise there is no (simple) way to negate non-verbal parts of a sentence
(an important thing to be able to do).
You can drive yourself nuts getting philosophical about cases like "paq
vIghajbe'"; is it the having that's negated or the book, or both? After
all, I *do* have things, just not the book. Or conversely, I *do* do other
things to the book (see it, think about it (even if it doesn't exist)), but
I don't have it. I'd tend to think it applies to the clause as a whole.
How would you translate "paq'e' vIghajbe'"? It sounds to me like "it is
not the book which I have; I do not have the BOOK (as opposed to something
else)." You could read this as negating the book (as it is in the
English), but I won't thump on it too hard, since it's too easy to read it
in other ways.
Klingon is not Lojban, and I don't feel it has so carefully-planned scope
rules. Similarly, I don't stress too horribly about the placement of an
adverb in a sentence which starts off with a -meH or -taHvIS clause. Yes,
one might expect the adverb to follow the -meH clause in order to apply
only to the main sentence, but if it precedes them both I'm quite happy to
say it could apply to either the subordinate clause or the main clause (or
even both).
~mark