tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 13 13:51:29 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC: hi
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:32:04 -0800 (PST) "Andeen, Eric"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> lab Phil:
>
> > My trials and translations, oh my! (help!)
>
> Pretty good. I'll only comment on problems, so you can assume the rest is
> OK.
>
> >
> > Robyn Stewart wrote:
> >
> > > chorur.
> >
> > You're like me. [or "you resemble me"]
> >
> > > wa'maH cha' ben mu'ghom vIje' 'ach wej ben Hol vIghojchoH.
> >
> > Twelve years ago [!!], I bought the dictionary, but [the
> > -choH suffix gives me trouble here] I did not yet begin
> > learning the language years ago ["back then"?].
>
> Very close. You have been taken in by the one really annoying ambiguity in
> the Klingon language - <wej> here means "three", and not "not yet". The
> <-choH> means "began" or "started" in this case, so Qov is saying "... but I
> started learning the language three years ago."
This is why I prefer to use {ben} in a way like {leS} and {Hu'}
in {wa'leS} and {wa'Hu'}. If she had said {wejben} there would
have been no confusion. Also, I very rarely use {ben} if I don't
have a number to put in front of it, so I would never expect
{wej} in front of a bare {ben} to mean "not yet". I think there
are ways to make {wej} clear as to which it means, but we can't
be careless about it. I would think that a native speaker would
be quite accustomed to this and make a point of using it clearly.
> The other ambiguities make Klingon more interesting and natural, but the
> <wej> problem is often just a pain.
I'm not convinced that with focussed intent it has to be a
problem. Context and careful statement can almost always make it
clear. I see it mostly as a trap for those who don't speak
Klingon so well and tend to cast Klingon sentences mostly in the
manner most grammatically similar with the most similar words to
the English statement they seem afraid to change in order to be
more clear.
> > > cha'logh chorur: jIghojchoHtaHvIS *appendix* vIbuSHa'mo' <tlhIngan
> > > jIHbe'> jIjatlhlaHbe'.
Note that Qov is doing something here that we've never seen
Okrand do. She is separating a dependent clause from its main
clause (which is based on a verb of speech) with the direct
quotation. I think that's somewhat bold and I'd never do it
until I saw Okrand do it somewhere. Besides, it is clearer if
you avoid this, especially if it were spoken.
Of course, one of the major differences in style between myself
and Qov is in our sequencing of phrases. I don't claim to be
right, though I believe my approach to be much clearer. Students
can choose to follow whichever example you like, but they should
at least be made aware that this is unusual enough that it can't
be related to any canon we've seen yet. I'd have written it
several ways to avoid this. My favorite would be:
jIghojchoHtaHvIS *appendix* vIbuSHa'mo' jIjatlhlaHbe' <tlhIngan
jIHbe'.>
Meanwhile, this strikes me as a strange thing to say. "I can't
say, "I'm not a Klingon," because I ignore the appendix while I
began to learn." Her ignoring the appendix made her incapable of
saying, "I'm not a Klingon,"? Is there something in the appendix
that makes one able to say this? It is in the phrase part, but
all the tools needed to say it are earlier in the dictionary.
> In Klingon for the Galactic Traveller, we got a bit of clarification on
> <'utlh>. What it really means is more like "retired officer", which is a
> fairly big deal since most Klingon officers die while serving. Qov survived
> the last year as BG. She got to retire in September when I took over.
>
>
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian
charghwI' 'utlh