tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 01 19:49:59 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH} (was: long weekend with MO)

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Steven Boozer 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> : ter'eS, Voragh and charghwI' discuss the following sentences
> : (with respect of indefinite subject "it")
> :    [snip]
> : Can I please have a summary of how the meaning of {-meH}
> : is extended by Okrandian usage?
> 
> It's late and I want to think about this a bit, but a couple of observations.  
> 
> {-meH} isn't being extended, just indefinite subjects--a feature which I
> think was present in the language from the very beginning, we just didn't
> have clear evidence of it due to the limited nature of the sample until
> Okrand's {SIS} "It is raining".  

I noticed from the very beginning that Okrand has two distinct 
uses of the suffix {-meH}. Sometimes it has a normal prefix, 
when the purpose involves a specific subject and/or object, but 
as often as not, Okrand has used it for translations into 
English which use the infinitive, with no subject or object 
indicated (which is the whole point of infinitives).

I think {-meH} without a prefix has nothing to do with {SIS}. 
You might translate {SIS} as "It is raining," but {qIpmeH} is 
just plain "in order to hit" or "to hit" or "for hitting" or 
"for the purpose of hitting". There is no "it" in any of those 
translations.

I'll go farther and state that I think {SIS} has a null prefix, 
while {qIpmeH} totally lacks a prefix. This may not seem like 
they are different, but I believe they are.

> (Klingons obviously don't spend a lot of
> time talking about the weather, but Okrand, being human, does.)  I also
> pointed out that we've always had {Do'Ha'} "It is unfortunate" as a complete
> thought in Klingon (from somewhere in TKD).  If this is not evidence of
> indefinite usage, what then does "it" refer to?

Well, the translation in ST3 was "That is unfortunate." The 
"that" in this case was the fact that Valkris had seen the 
Genesis Data. Do'Ha' ngoDvetlh. I guess more accurately, it 
would have been: ngoDvetlhmo' bIDo'Ha'.

> : yaS SuvmeH Qatlh (Qu').
> : It (The task) is difficult to fight the officer.

Is this a canon example?
 
> My view:  {yaS SuvmeH Qatlh} is correct for "It is difficult to fight the
> officer" (i.e. in general).  "It" does not need to have an antecedent and
> using {Qu'} as an overt subject is quite wrong.  

I REALLY don't see where you get off declaring this to be "quite 
wrong". I see it as at LEAST a valid alternative, except for the 
exchange between myself and Okrand over the example "I was too 
late for the party" (or something similar to that). I didn't 
like {lopmeH jIpaSqu'.} Okrand didn't either and came back with 
the {nargh 'eb} useage instead, part as a response to the idea 
of "too" being carried by {-qu'} and part with the problem of 
having {-meH} connected to a negative concept.

By that I mean, clearly I was not being late with the intent of 
my tardiness serving the purpose of partying. The lateness 
INTERFERED with the partying. He sidestepped that whole issue 
with {nargh 'eb}.

> I think Klaa's question
> from ST5 {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'?} "Difficult to hit?} supports this usage.  Others
> disagree.

I really think you are mixing apples and oranges. Just because 
no syllable appears before the verb root on the {-meH} verb and 
no syllable appears before {SIS}, that does not imply that 
anything is grammatically or syntactically similar between them.
  
> : qIpmeH Qatlh'a' nejwI'?
> : Is the probe difficult to hit?
> 
> In the above, {nejwI'} is the subject of the Klingon sentence, which is
> clearly wrong.  If you split off the second clause, you will realize you are
> not asking {Qatlh'a' nejwI'?} "Is the probe difficult?".  The probe is not
> doing anything, it is merely a passive target.  

I think Qov shows more insight into this than you do. The probe 
IS being difficult, in when you consider the purpose "to hit". 
{nejwI'} definitely is the subject. There is no other 
grammatical justification for any noun sitting where it is 
sitting. If it were not subject, it would have to preceed 
{Qatlh}, not follow it. It does follow it. Deal with it.

> Something is being (or will
> be) done to the probe, it is receiving the action of the verb "hit", the
> very definition of a grammatical object.  charghwI''s version (IMHO) should
> read {nejwI' qIpmeH Qatlh'a'?} "Is it difficult to hit the probe?" or even
> {nejwI' vIqIpmeH Qatlh'a'?} "Is it difficult *for me* to hit the probe?"

I would definitely see both of those as valid means of 
expressing this idea, but Okrand's choice is quite valid by my 
perspective. "Is the probe difficult to hit?" The English 
translation uses an infinitive, which Klingon doesn't have. The 
Klingon translation uses a purpose clause which English doesn't 
have. A native speaker of one language is going to have to bend 
his mind a bit to wrap it around the grammar used by the other 
language.

When I first noticed that {-meH} verbs often did not get 
prefixes appropriate to their apparent meaning, I started to 
realize it was because Okrand has repeatedly used it as an 
infinitive. I didn't like that much, but I adjusted to it, and 
in doing so, I've come to accept this example as quite valid 
with "probe" as the real, live subject of "be difficult".

> This again leaves us arguing over how to render "is it difficult?" in Klingon.  

The problem here is that I see several valid ways to render this 
and you want to claim that most of them are invalid:

{qIpmeH Qatlh'a' nejwI'?} "Is the probe difficult to hit?" 
Okrand said this and it works for me, but you call it "clearly 
wrong". Pardon if I point out that yours is a weak position, 
given that you are critiquing the man who created the language.

{nejwI' qIplu'meH Qatlh'a' Qu'?} "In order that the probe is 
hit, is the task difficult?" I think this is fine and you call 
it "quite wrong". The one angle of attack I think it is weak 
from is if you consider that it might be interpreted to mean 
that the difficulty level is positively related to the task of 
hitting it. It is difficult specifically in order to serve the 
function of being hit. It is a little odd this way.

Qatlh'a' nejwI' qIplu'meH Qu'? Is the hit-the-probe task 
difficult? I think this actually works better, since {-meH} can 
modify a noun and in this case, we ARE talking about a task or 
mission being difficult. Which mission? The one which involves 
hitting the probe. You could attempt to misinterpret {Qu'} as 
subject of {qIp}, but what can I say? The {-lu'} makes it pretty 
obvious that you'd be wrong. {Qu'} is simply the noun being 
modified by the {-meH} clause. I think this is better than 
Okrand's example, but I do think Okrand's word choice is quite 
valid.
 
> What, if anything, does "it" refer to in sentences of this type?

Well, it is pretty clear that the context set from the question 
uses {nejwI'} as subject, and the response would similarly use 
{nejwI'} as subject. There's nothing "indefinite" about it.
 
> : Marc Ruehlaender
> 
> Voragh  

charghwI'

Back to archive top level