tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 08 15:34:30 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: RE: KLBC:Old message

jatlh charghwI':

> > : 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."
> 
> ...

charghwI' is quite right here. This is actually a case where I found it
easier to express myself in Klingon than in English. The Klingon is simple
and unambiguous: <DaHjaj pablIj neH vIqel jIH>. <DaHjaj> for the time stamp.
<pablIj neH vIqel> - I consider only your grammar, not anything else. No
particular emphasis on "your grammar" - just that I do consider it, and I do
not consider anything else. Finally, the <jIH> to emphasize "I". *I*
consider only your grammar, but *others* may or may not consider your
grammar as well as the content of your message or the color of your hair or
the weight of your targ. If the subject were a regular noun, I might have
added <-'e'>.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

Back to archive top level