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