tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 08 15:40:01 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Who's at -Daq?
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Who's at -Daq?
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:39:26 EST
jatlh SuStel:
>Though there is no context with this sentence, the following appears in The
>Klingon Dictionary (page 60):
>
>pa'Daq yaS vIleghpu'
>I saw the officer in the room.
>
>Who was in the room when the seeing had happened? Me, or the officer?
>
>Honestly, one's first assumption is going to be that the officer is the one
>in the room, and that you see him there. Without context, that's certainly
>my first reaction. However, it is grammatically ambiguous in English. One
>might even argue that since this sentence doesn't have any text associated
>with it explaining how to interpret it, that these sorts of sentences can be
>ambiguous even in Klingon.
I tend to assume that the room is where *I saw* the officer, particularly in
the Klingon sentence. If you want to say that the officer is in the room, you
can obviously do it totally unambiguously with two clauses:
yaS vIleghpu' pa'Daq ghaHtaHvIS.
I saw the officer while s/he was in the room.
Or, if you want to say that you are in the room:
yaS vIleghpu' pa'Daq jIHtaHvIS.
I saw the officer while I was in the room.
Or, of course,
yaS vIleghpu' pa'Daq maHtaHvIS.
I saw the officer while we were in the room.
But this is a lot longer than {pa'Daq yaS vIleghpu'}. Anyway, in most cases,
the issue is unimportant. Context will often provide the answer. If you say,
"I saw the officer in the room," chances are good that the listener will know
who is where. For example:
"While I was waiting outside, I saw the officer in the room."
Or, in Klingon:
HurDaq jIloStaHvIS, pa'Daq yaS vIleghpu'.
- DujHoD