tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 01 07:17:36 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: long weekend with MO

According to Steven Boozer:
> 
> DloraH wrote:
> >But when Marc and I went outside and drops of water were falling on us,
> >he looked up and simply said "SIS".
> 
> I wrote:
> >It looks like Glen Proechel was vindicated about indefinite or unspecified
> >subjects being allowed in Klingon. Why some people objected to this idea in
> >light of {-lu'} or {net} constructions puzzled me.  
> 
> ter'eS wrote:
> >Does this apply to any verb, I wonder, or just weather verbs?  I had indeed
> >bought into the idea that indefinite subjects weren't allowed (for reasons
> >that excape me). I have used {SIS chal} in postings to this list, and I
> >would translate something like "It is difficult to fight the officer" as
> >{yaS SuvmeH Qatlh Qu'}.  If I can use an impersonal subject, then I could 
> >just say {yaS SuvmeH Qatlh}. (Ironically, this point goes all the way back 
> >to my first letter to _HolQeD_, about the phrase {qIpmeH Qatlh}, almost 6 
> >years ago!)

I personally never had much of a problem with "it" when there
likely was some specific subject in mind, like {yaS SuvmeH
Qatlh}, which more formally (and quite correctly) can be
expressed as {yaS SuvmeH Qatlh Qu'}, which I don't find
convoluted at all. My problem with the "indefinite it" has
always been with the temptation that beginners have to convert
Sentence As Object constructions into the illegal Sentence As
Subject construction via the vague, human "it":

*yaS Suv 'e' Qatlh*

This is an even more obviously wrong example because {Qatlh} is
intransitive, but even with other verbs, there have been times
I've had to argue strenuously when fools tried to use "it" as
the subject which in truth reflected back to the Object in SAO.
That is the real danger of becoming too content with the
indefinite "it". Use it too much and you will wind up using it
in the second half of SAO and spew gibberish when you think you
are speaking, and you'll even argue with people trying to point
out your ignorant error, which you got to via a short-sighted
slippery slope.

> {yaS SuvmeH Qatlh Qu'} "In order to fight the officer, the task is difficult"
> seems awfully convoluted.  Why make things difficult for yourself and create a
> special "weather rule" until Okrand states it explicitly?  ST5 would seem to
> permit {yaS SuvmeH Qatlh}: 
> 
> Vixis:	nejwI' tIQ 'oH.
> 	 A probe of ancient origin.
> Klaa:	qIpmeH Qatlh'a'?
> 	 Difficult to hit?
> 	 ("Is it difficult to hit?")
> Vixis:	Qatlhqu'.
> 	 Most difficult.
> 	 ("It is very difficult.")
> Klaa:	maj.
> 	 Good.
> 
> Does "it" in Klaa's question and Vixis' answer refer to the probe or is this the
> indefinite or vague "it" used in "it is raining"?  

In the English translation, the subject of Klaa's question is
definitely the probe. In English, we might not consider "The
probe is difficult," to make a lot of sense, but then, we don't
have {-meH} clauses in English just like Klingon doesn't have
infinitives ("to hit"). I think it would have been equally
correct to rewrite this dialog as:

qIpmeH Qatlh'a' nejwI'?

Qatlhqu' nejwI'.

While I do see this as very different from {SIS}, I also
recognize that {SIS} is such an obvious verb for such a common
function that standing alone, it simply makes sense. I could
have seen it going in the direction of {SISlu'} as well, but it
doesn't disturb me at all used alone. I'm glad Okrand has
nailed this down for us and I am VERY hesitant to then take
this lone example and go running around trying to figure out
how I can overgeneralize it, trying to change the way everyone
says everything using the langauge. This is PRECISELY why
Okrand is so hesitant to tell us anything. Every time he utters
anything, people run around screaming about some new global
truth that should cause us to rethink the entire language.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

> We do have other examples of
> this vague "it" in canon:
>
>   Do'Ha'	"It is unfortunate." (TKD)

This is, as a stand alone sentence, essentially an
exclammatory, not unlike {HIja'} and {ghobe'}. It is a very
common statement that takes on different treatment from most
verbs.

>   yImev, yap!	"Stop! It is enough!" (KGT p.113)

Again, like {SIS} or {Do'Ha'}, we are talking about statements
that are common enough that link into common experience at such
a root level, they don't need to be precise or comprehensive
statements, like a child teasing with "nyaaaaa nyaaaaaa nya
nyaaaa nyaaaa, or a human parent turning toward a child and
uttering (spelled in Klingon, because it is easier):
'a' while shaking her head and raising her hand, preparing to
slap the child's hand.

> There are also examples in the sample conjugated verbs in the often maligned
> "MSN" Klingon Lesson materials at Star Trek: Continuum (so called because the
> site was previously hosted on The Microsoft Network).  Although the
> "definitions" at the site were in fact written by STC staff, the words and
> translations themselves were provided by Okrand, who also recorded a sound file
> for each word.

I don't trust anything from that site, given MSN's flippant
insertion of those "extra" definitions for no reason and with
no authority or comprehension. They were both clueless and
disrespectful.

>   Duy'		"It is defective."
>   Hurgh		"It is dark."
>   ngeb		"It is false."
>   ngeD		"It is easy."
>   ngo'		"It is old (not young)."
>   SuQ		"It is toxic."
>   tlhol		"It is raw."
>   'ugh		"It is heavy."

Unless he shows us examples IN CONTEXT of an "indefinite it", I
don't see any reason to presume that these are not "definite"
its.

> The intriguing items on this list are {Hurgh} "It is dark" and {ngeD} "It is
> easy".  Must "it" refer to a tangible object previously mentioned or implied by
> context (admittedly true of the other examples), or can this also be the vague
> "it" in {SIS} "It is raining"?  

When I see examples in context of the indefinite "it" in
settings unlike those I would use already, I'll consider them
as valid, alternative wording in Klingon. It is not something I
am seeking and it is not something I suspect will be beneficial
to the language's expressive capabilities. Instead, I suspect
it will be the source of a lot of vague mangling of the
language, especially in SAO constructions where the second verb
will get "it" as the subject referring to the previous
sentence, and THAT is a MISTAKE.

> Each of these examples is accompanied by an
> explanation: e.g. "The quality Duy', meaning defective, as used in a sentence." 
> What exactly does "as used in a sentence" mean?  A complete, one word sentence
> or as used as part of a longer sentence?  Other one word examples are presented
> with the other verb prefixes: e.g. {bI'IH} "You are beautiful."  {chotIch} "You
> insult me."  {qatlhob} "I ask you." 
> 
> So, can you say:
> 
>   Hurgh.
>   "It is dark." (looking out your window at night)

Likely, yes, for the same reason you can look out the window
and say, {SIS}. Context definitely covers a lot of turf. This
is a different kind of "it" than the one I have personally
fought against and will continue to fight against. I also
bristle at the suggestion that {Qatlh Qu'} is "contorted". It
is at least as valid and clear as {Qatlh} alone.

>   tlhIngan Hol jatlhmeH ngeD.
>   "Speaking Klingon is easy. It is easy to speak Klingon."
 
I think this is acceptable and I think {tlhIngan Hol jatlhmeH
ngeD Qu'} is equally acceptable and slightly more clear, since
I believe the shortened version could, in some contexts, mean
something like, "She easily speaks Klingon." If you want to
state that, in general, the task of speaking Klingon is easy, I
think you are better served using the word {Qu'} explicitly.

The probe is difficult-in-order-to-hit. She is easy-in-order-to-
speak-Klingon.

> Voragh

charghwI'

Back to archive top level