tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 09 11:21:59 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIQuch
ja' charghwI':
> According to Christiane Scharf:
> >
> > ja' charghwI':
>
>
>
> > {QaQ yaSvaD vInobpu'bogh paq} - "The book I have given to the officer is good."
> > I can see no problem here.
>
> QaQ = It is good.
>
> QaQ yaSvaD = This is gibberish. I have to start memorizing
> words.
>
> QaQ yaSvaD vInobpu'bogh = gibberish. There's something here
> about an officer for whom I gave "it" and being good. The
> grammar doesn't fit yet.
>
> QaQ yaSvaD vInobpu'bogh paq. It is STILL gibberish. I think you
> meant to put the word {paq} after the word {yaSvaD}. Then it
> would have been difficult, but possible to parse. Now, it is
> simply wrong.
Actually I had sent a message which fixed my error, but for some mysterious reason it
never appeared on the list...
>
>
> > {yaSvaD vInobpu'bogh paq DalaD} - "You read the book I have given to the
> > officer"
>
> This is relatively easy to parse, except that you made the same
> error in word order. {paq} belongs before {vInobpu'bogh}.
I really sent a message to correct this.
> Meanwhile, it does stand very near the mess Okrand created by
> allowing head nouns to have Type 5 suffixes on them in order to
> act as Type 5 nouns in the main clause. I really don't like
> this.
Neither do I.
>
>
> In this case, I find it far simpler to break it down into two
> sentences:
>
> paq DalaD. yaSvaD paqvam vInobpu'.
>
> It would be as good as:
>
> yaSvaD paq vInobpu'. paqvam DalaD.
>
> It just depends on whether you want to emphasize that I had
> given it to the officer, or that you were reading it.
> > Admittedly, there might be cases when the relative clause modifies
> > the object of the main sentence, where the indirect object can either belong
> > to the main sentence or to the relative clause.
>
> This is why it is better to have more, simpler sentences than
> try to pile things together in an English style, overburdening
> Klingon's grammar. The word order is so significant in Klingon
> that for clarity, you really need to consider how much you are
> requiring someone to memorize before they start to get the
> grammatical structure of the sentence, even before the actual
> meaning of the words sinks in.
>
> In English, we have helping words so we understand phrases as
> we hear them before they are assembled into whole sentences.
> Klingon doesn't have helper words. Instead, Klingon grammar
> reveals itself through a dance between affixes and word order.
> It does not really support the kind of grammatical complexity
> within the context of a single sentence that English speakers
> (especially college educated English speakers) would like to
> construct.
>
> charghwI'
Yes. Recast, recast, recast. It's always easier to underrstand short sentences when
you are talking. Even when they are written, long Klingon sentences can be ahrd to
understand. I usually try to avoid them. But my sentence was not that long and I
didn't think it might cause problems.
HovqIj