tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 02 07:22:11 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH} (was: long weekend with MO)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH} (was: long weekend with MO)
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:46:44 -0400
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Steven Boozer
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> (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."
No, the line goes (and is subtitled) thus:
Do'Ha'
Unfortunate!
There's no "it" involved in the translation. I'd just call this the
adverbial, and worry about its Old Klingon derivation in some other thread.
> 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'.
Presuming that {Do'Ha'} was meant to be a verb (which cannot be proven), you
are right.
>> : yaS SuvmeH Qatlh (Qu').
>> : It (The task) is difficult to fight the officer.
>
>Is this a canon example?
No, they are taking a made-up example and discussing it.
>> : 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?"
Hold on, folks! The line and subtitle in Star Trek V is this:
qIpmeH Qatlh'a'
Difficult to hit?
Qatlhqu'
Most difficult.
We're never told WHAT the subject is: {nejwI'}, {Qu'}, or something else.
This line is also vague for interpretation.
>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".
In the case of {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'}, I disagree that the probe is the subject
of the main verb. {Qu'} or some other noun seems best. The probe is not
difficult, the TASK of hitting it is 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
Am I forgetting a line from somewhere? I really don't think he 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.
If it's not a line from Okrand, I agree with him.
>{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".
This sentence works just fine.
>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.
This has always been my reservation about purpose clauses used like this.
However, they obviously are . . .
>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?
No you can't. If you did so, you'd have a purpose clause at the end of a
sentence, which cannot happen.
>The {-lu'} makes it pretty
>obvious that you'd be wrong.
When I first read it, the {-lu'} confused me. I don't think I'd have been
confused by
Qatlh nejwI' qIpmeH Qu'.
Using {-lu'} doesn't seem to be wrong, however.
>{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.
Your construction is certainly more watertight. Maybe Klaa was playing fast
and loose with what he was saying!
SuStel
Stardate 98419.1