tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 09 09:56:21 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: RE: (KLBC) 'e' as a subject



On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:04:29 -0500 TPO <[email protected]> 
wrote:
> > HoD Qanqor sees nothing wrong with using a question as the object of
> > a sentence.  ...  Many others do
> > not share his assessment, and prefer to avoid such constructions.
> 
> MO did say that we can not have QAO.
> Whether the question words can act the same way english question words do,
> is unkown (I don't remember what the terminology is for this).

He did not rule out all potential for QAO. He merely stated 
that all the examples presented to him didn't fly and 
basically, until he thought of a specific reason to need 
QAO, it didn't work. In particular, the common examples we 
wondered about definitely were not acceptable.

He definitely said that you can't use question words as if 
they were relative pronouns. In English, relative clauses 
are handled by the use of relative pronouns, which just 
happen to be identical to our question words.

Question words:

Who are you?
What is wrong?
When are you leaving?
Where is your permit?
Why are you leaving?
How will you fix this?

Relative pronouns:

I don't know who he was.
I don't know what he did.
He didn't say when he would be leaving.
I know where he is hiding.
I know why he is hiding.
I know how to find him.

The words are the same, but the grammar is unrelated. 
Unfortunately, thinking in English, you can ignore this and 
fail to recognize that Klingon handles relative clauses 
with a completely different grammar. It is not that Klingon 
optionally handles it with a different grammar such that 
you can do it the Klingon way (with {-bogh} on the verb) or 
the English way {by using {'e'} with Sentence as Object 
where the sentence is actually a question because you are 
misusing a question word as if Klingon also used it as a 
relative pronoun like English does.

Klingon never uses a question word as if it were a relative 
pronoun. Never. Just because you can place words next to 
each other such that if you translate into English you will 
get an English styled relative clause that doesn't mean 
that you are actually saying anything that would be 
understood by any Klingon.

I have deep respect for Krankor. Without his guidance, 
patience and excellent example, I never would have learned 
to speak Klingon at all, let alone with whatever skill I've 
managed to muster. Besides, the guy knows how to party and 
has demonstrated so many brilliant displays of genius at 
the Cabaret year after year that to speak against him is to 
speak against Shakespeare or Einstein or Mohomed Ali. The 
man has achieved greatness. I have not.

Unfortunately, one of the things that is his greatest 
strength (his ability to speak in Klingon in a way that is 
extremely easy to understand) is also a weakness here IN MY 
OPINION because it tempts him so strongly to do the easy, 
familiar thing and use Klingon words such that when you lay 
out the English that it translates to, it looks like this 
makes sense. I think he hates the idea that something that 
so clearly appears to make sense actually wouldn't.

I respect that he sees it quite different from this. We 
disagree. Meanwhile, you can read the interview in HolQeD 
and decide for yourself what is most definitely valid.

Meanwhile, Klingon grammar handles relative clauses for the 
relative pronouns who and what and more strangely where, 
but it doesn't really handle when, why or how.

paq nIHbogh nuv'e' vIghovbe'.

I didn't recognize the man who took the book.

or

I didn't recognize who took the book.

Doch'e' nIHbogh nuv vIghovbe'.

I didn't recognize the thing which the person took.

or

I didn't recognize what he took.

Qe'Daq Suchpu'bogh Qanqor jIloSlI'.

I'm waiting at the restaurant which Krankor visited.

or

I'm waiting at the restaurant where Krankor visited.

Note that this one is a little controversial and kinda 
ugly. This is one of my goats that get gotten, but I 
surrender it to the wolves. If this is how you want to 
speak Klingon, go for it. I generally won't.

Meanwhile, if you want to translate something like:

He didn't say when he would be leaving.
I know why he is hiding.
I know how to find him.

Klingon relative clauses don't work for these examples. You 
have to get creative and come up with some other 
grammatical construction.

ghaytan tugh tlheD 'ach poH vISovbe'.
So'meH meqDaj vISov.
SammeH mIw vISov.

These methods may not work for all examples. This is not a 
formula or an algorythm. I'm merely casting the meaning via 
the tools available in the language. The first step is to 
let go of the false idea that grammatical constructions are 
always equivalent between two languages. What may be a 
relative clause in English may be a purpose clause in 
Klingon. What may be a question in English may be a command 
in Klingon. You have to back up to the thought before you 
progress to the expression. Translation does not work 
without that step. Decide what something means before you 
try to translate it. Don't work from the words. Work from 
the thoughts behind the words.

> (Praxis con, May 98)
> 
> DloraH
 
charghwI'



Back to archive top level