tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 13 09:02:47 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: RE: KLBC: Hol vI'lo 'e' vInID (vagh)

On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:34:24 -0700 "Andeen, Eric" 
<> wrote:

> tuv'el jIjang. jIjatlh:
> > > Enough for what? In English, we throw the word "enough" 
> > > around a lot, but we often don't ask or know the answer 
> > > to that question. If you can't answer it, think again 
> > > about what you really mean. If you can, use that answer 
> > > to be more precise. For example:
> > > 
> > > jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqraj. Ha'DIbaH tlhorghmoHchu'be'.
> > > jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqraj. muyonmoHbe'.
> > > jeDbe'ba' qettlhupqoqraj. QIv.
> mujang tuv'el. jatlh:
> > 	What I'm trying to say is: it's not thick enough, 
> > it's not dense enough, it's too thin.

jeDbe'mo' qetlhupqoqraj yonmoHbe'lu'.
> It's not thick enough for *what*???? My whole point is that you are just
> saying "it's not thick enough" without reference to why it should be thick
> or what standard you are comparing it against. If it's just common knowledge
> that <qettlhup> should be a certain consistence, and this is stuff is just
> not even close, then that's fine. Just know that the standard is well know
> and implied.

I agree completely with your concern here. In English, there is 
an implied standard that is never mentioned, but that standard 
is a necessary part of the meaning of the sentence. Too often, 
we try to translate working from the words instead of the 
meaning, and if an essential part of the meaning can be omitted 
in English, we make the uneasy assumption that the same piece of 
meaning can remain unmentioned in Klingon. I personally do not 
believe this to be true in many cases. In my recasting above, I 
consider the standard to be that the function of qatlhup in this 
setting is to satisfy the eater, and this not-thick qatlhup will 
fail that criterium.
> We don't have a word in Klingon to say that an action (including a quality)
> is "enough" or not enough, but we do have a brand new word - <tlhoy> - to
> say that it is excessive. It's possible that <tlhoyHa'> means "not enough",
> alhtough without confirmation from Okrand we don't even know if <tlhoyHa'>
> is allowed at all. You can negate the verb, though. If something is not
> enough of one quality, then it is too much of its opposite: <tlhoy jeDHa'>.

This is interesting. I don't think we need it to cast the 
sentence, but it is worth considering.
> > > I'm also not exactly sure what you mean when you say 
> > > <Hoch Hutlhlaw'>. It's grammatically fine, but I am 
> > > having a hard time interpreting it.
> > 	The idea I had in mind was: It lacks everything, 
> > there's nothing good about it, If there's something 
> > that's needed to make good qettlhup, you can be sure 
> > it's not in *this* batch.
> I think my problem was that <Hoch> is a bit too vague. I think in this
> situation I would probably say <tlhorghHa'chu'> or <'eyHa'chu'>. If I wanted
> to be a bit more expansive, I might add <qettlhup nIv vutlu'meH, Dochmey
> law' poQlu'. Hoch Dochvam Hutlhba' qettlhupvam'e' jay'!>.
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian
> tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ


Back to archive top level