tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 08 14:43:30 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: RE: KLBC:Old message

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:26:38 -0800 (PST) Steven Boozer 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> : jatlh 'oghwI':
> : > I was going through the archives of messages from the list 
> : > (Sep, 4th 1998) when I found a message from you.  At the 
> : > end you said:
> : >> 	DaHjaj pablIj neH vIqel jIH
> : > I've translated this as "Today I only consider your grammar."
> : > 
> : > I was just wondering why you put the <jIH> on the end, as 
> : > <vIqel> already contains the "I" that <jIH> is adding.
> : 
> : The <jIH> was added for emphasis. Today, *I* only considered your grammar.
> : Others may have done other stuff.
> : 
> : pagh
 
> pagh is of course correct in his explanation of the grammar, 
> but I think he didn't really think through his original post.  
> I have a stylistic quibble.  Using two types of emphasis in 
> one sentence is confusing:
 
> 	DaHjaj pablIj neH vIqel jIH	
> 	Today, only I considered only your grammar.

I think the problem is with English and the mushiness of word 
order. pagh would probably have better stated the translation 
as, "Today, *I* consider only your grammar." As stated, it is 
ambiguous. The "only" could have the "merely" adverbial meaning 
applied to the verb instead of the exclusive meaning added to 
the noun. The Klingon is clearer than the English.

I don't think using two types of emphasis is confusing here. The 
{neH} is a statement of exclusivity, not emphasis. The direct 
object of {vIqel} is {pablIj} and nothing else. The {jIH} 
indicates emphasis and not exclusivity. Indeed, other people may 
consider his grammar as well. They might consider his spelling, 
his logic, his content and many other things in addition to his 
logic. Whatever the case, I'm not speaking about what anybody 
else does. I'm talking about ME. "Today, *I* consider ONLY your 
grammar."
 
See? It really is two different kinds of "emphasis" (since {neH} 
is not emphasis, but instead exclusivity). Page 57 in TKD 
discusses this use of neH and nowhere does Okrand mention 
emphasis. Meanwhile, back on page 51 TKD he says, "Pronouns may 
be used as nouns, but only for added emphasis or added clarity."

> What are you really stressing here?  The way it's written, the 
> main emphasis seems to be (at least to me and 'oghwI') on 
> {pablIj}: I only considered your *grammar* (not your literary 
> style, choice of words, spelling, Klingon spirit, etc.) with 
> perhaps a secondary emphasis on {jIH}.  If you really want to 
> stress the subject - I and no one else will be doing this - 
> you'd either need to omit {neH}:

I don't think this has anything to do with emphasis. It merely 
limits the field of direct objects under consideration. 
Exclusivity is not emphasis. They are similar, but not identical.

> 	DaHjaj pablIj vIqel jIH
> 	Today *I* will be the one considering your grammar
> 
> (i.e. "I am the one who does this", "it's my job and no one else's"), or move {neH} after {jIH}:

I disagree. The "and no one else's" is not implied with {jIH} as 
used here. There is no regard to anyone else.

It is like the difference between amoral and immoral. Immoral 
acts are those by people who have knowledge of morals and 
violate them. Amoral acts are those which are done with no 
relation to morality.

Emphasis has no relation to anyone else. Others may be involved, 
or maybe not. That's not what we care about. We only care about 
the emphasized case.

Exclusivity has a negative relation to everything else. Nothing 
else is allowed.

Imagine a dark room. A spotlight comes up on a can of beans. 
This is emphasis. Maybe this is one can in a whole warehouse of 
beans that we can't see because they are in the dark. Maybe it 
is alone in a desert. We can't tell because all we can see is 
this one can of beans. Emphasis.

Imagine picking up that can of beans. Step onto a shuttlecraft. 
Fly off into deep space. Take a space walk. Blow up the 
shuttlecraft. Drift in space holding on to the can of beans. 
There is nothing else to consider except this can of beans. 
Exclusivity.

See the difference?
 
> 	DaHjaj pablIj vIqel jIH neH
> 	I am the only one who'll consider your grammar today.
> 	I and I alone am the one who'll discuss your grammar today.
 
> .. since it's a KLBC post, all others are forbidden to comment 
> before the BG; they'll just have to wait until tomorrow. This 
> adds even more emphasis to {jIH}, though it may be overkill.  
> Looking at my notes, however, I can find only one case where 
> Okrand adds any additional emphasis when he uses {neH}, {jay'} 
> or {-'e'}:
 
> 	not qoHpu''e' neH ghIjlu' 
> 	Only fools have no fear.  TKW

I don't see this as a double emphasis. I see that Okrand is both 
emphasizing the noun {qoH} and excluding everything that is not 
{qoH}. These are two different kinds of statements about what 
{qoH} is doing in this sentence. It is like saying, "FOOLS and 
ONLY fools are never scared."

That's not the same thing as just saying, "FOOLS are never 
scared." It's not the same as saying "Only fools are never 
scared." It is saying BOTH. 

> Here {-'e'} and {neH} both emphasize the very same noun.  

No. {neH} is not emphasising. It is excluding all else.

> Emphasizing more than one thing in a sentence rather defeats 
> the point: if everything is emphasized, nothing is really > 
> emphasized.  

Maybe I'm missing the point here. I believe that you are missing 
the point here, but I've come under recent criticism for voicing 
opinions like this, so I'll just say with reasonable confidence 
that at least one of us is missing a point and I'll leave it up 
to the general consensus to figure out who.

> Of course, EMPHASIZING EVERY D**N THING YOU SAY at *full* volume is *VERY* Klingon!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Voragh                       
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level