tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 13:53:55 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: the scope of {-be'}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: the scope of {-be'}
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:53:15 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:18:15 -0500 [email protected] wrote:
> > >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> > >Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:25:58 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
> > >
> > >If the rules become too flexible, then it becomes quite easy for
> > >a person to follow those rules in constructing a sentence and
> > >have the listener also follow the same rules in constructing the
> > >thought from the sentence, but they came up with a totally
> > >different thought.
> > >
> > >tugh tlhInganpu' DIpIHlI'. tlhInganpu' DaleghlaH'a'?
> > >
> > >wej tlhIngan vIlegh.
> >
> > I keep thinking that slang Klingon has to have come up with another word
> > for "three" that doesn't have this problem.
> >
> > ~mark
> >
> >
> One way of disambiguating {wej} that comes to my mind is to always use the
> plural suffixes when referring to the number 3, and therefore leave off the
> plural suffixes when using the "not yet" meaning.
This doesn't work unless we had sufficient usage for it to
become convention. It's just a code you came up with, but it
doesn't mean anything in the language, because:
> ghobe'. wej tlhIngan vIlegh.
> I don't see Klingon(s) yet.
"No. I see three klingons."
> HISlaH. wej tlhInganpu' vIlegh.
> I see three Klingons.
"Yes. I don't see Klingons yet."
In my own feeble attempts to disambiguate, I'd answer:
tlhInganpu' vIleghbej. wej vIlegh.
or
chaq tugh tlhInganpu' vIlegh 'ach wej vay' vIlegh.
In the first case, since the prefix indicates a third person
direct object, {wej} is somewhat less likely to be
misinterpreted as an adverb, especially with the preceeding
sentence. There's no explicit noun there except for {wej}.
In the second case, {vay'} is not the kind of noun one applies a
number to. Again, the preceeding sentence helps.
It is very challenging to work around. Fortunately, I like
challenges.
> In KGT, it seems that usually when there are two words/meanings that could
> be mistaken for one another, disambiguation is accomplished by adding
> additional clarifying information.
> The examples starting on p. 18 ('uS qam & nach qab, etc.) and on p. 60
> (meqleH matlh & betleH quv) all use additional, non-ambiguous vocabulary to
> make it clear which meaning is intended.
> An extra word ({mI'} perhaps?) or sentence could be added, such as the
> Krotmag dialect {mImoH. yIjotchoH} and {mImoH. 'oy' mInNu'wIj} as used on
> p.20 of KGT.
That's certainly the way I tend to do it. I think this is common
in many languages.
> It might not be as efficient as having a single slang word for "three" (the
> only candidate that pops into my mind is {'egh}, the 3rd musical tone), but
> it gets the job done:
It would be nice if, like the German pair of words for "two", we
had another Klingon word for "three".
> wej tlhInganpu' vIlegh. chaH vIleghbej.
>
> wej tlhIngan vIlegh. pagh vIleghbej.
Given the potential urgency of this, I'd tend to give the
clearer information first, just in case someone attacked before
I got to the second sentence.
> Speaking of slang words for numbers (and vice versa), I do like the
> "prisoner" meaning of {jav}. I remember watching Star Trek V on tape once,
> and when one of the subtitles included the word 'prisoner', I listened for
> the word {qama'} but didn't hear it. However, I did hear something that
> sounded like {jab}, which now makes sense as a misheard {jav}.
Well, I hope you also know that it is a word-play based on the
old TV show called "The Prisoner" where the hero was assigned
the number 5...
> -taD
charghwI'