tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 21 15:22:03 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: (KLBC) introducing relatives

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:32:27 -0500 Nicolau Rodrigues 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Recently I asked about the function that {'e'} would take 
> as a subject, 

First, note that it is never the case that you can use 
{'e'} as a subject. I suspect this was just a misstatement 
made during incomplete attention, but please be clear about 
this.

> and it started a discussion very interesting to me. One 
> of the people who took part was {charghwI'} replying to 
> {DloraH}:
 
> >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'm speechless now! Is it right to use question words 
> introducing relative clauses or not?

It is not.

> Some say "yes", some 
> say "no",... 

Those who say "yes" are wrong. Most who have said "yes" in 
the past now admit that they were mistaken. It was an 
honest mistake, but a mistake all the same. A question word 
and a relative pronoun are not the same thing. In English, 
they appear to be the same, but in Klingon, there is no 
such thing as a relative pronoun. That grammatical element 
does not exist in the language.

> I've picked two exemples from Nick Nicholas' 
> translation of "Much Ado About Nothing" (5th revision) 
> {paghmo' tIn mIS}:
 
> 2.1, {joH pe'tlho} says:
> {HItlhej 'ej nuq vIHech Saja'.}
> "Accompany me and I'll told you what I will try"

This means:

"I tell you, 'Follow me, and what do I intend?'"

Better would have been:

HItlhej. nabwIj SaQIj.

I respect Nick a lot, but in this case I do not believe 
that he has accomplished expressing the idea that he 
intended to express. You cannot use a question word as if 
it were a relative pronoun in Klingon. The grammar has no 
place for it.

> 2.2, {joH jon} says:
> {chay' Dabot nom 'e' HIQIj.}
> "Explain me quickly how will you prevent it"

This is explicitly contrary to Okrand's prescription on how 
to use Sentence As Object.

Better would have been:

wanI'vam DabotmeH mIw'e' nom HIQIj.

Note that I'm using the Type 5 noun suffix {-'e'} and not 
the pronoun {'e'}. The only reason I'm doing it is that it 
allows me to put the adverbial {nom} between the direct 
object and the verb according to the exception explained in 
TKD section 6.7 on pages 179-180. Please note that there is 
a typo there, placing a errant blank space between {HaqwI'} 
and the Type 5 noun suffix {-'e'} in the example.

I wanted to remove the ambiguity as to whether {nom} 
applied to the relative clause surrounding the direct 
object or the main clause, so I used this exceptional rule 
to move the adverbial and make it clear.
 
> And I take from the same source a use of {'e'} I didn't expect:
> 3.1, {Hero} says:
> {maja'chuq 'e' 'IjmeH qettaHvIS.}
> "While she's running to listen what are we talking about"

Again, that's not very pretty.

mu'meymaj QoymeH qettaHvIS...

Realize that part of Nick's genius is is ability to write 
Klingon which fits the iambic pentameter and rhyme scheme 
of the Shakespearian texts he translates. While doing that, 
he sometimes bends the grammar quite a bit. A problem I 
find with any given piece out of context like this may very 
well break what took a great deal of time for him to build 
in the first place. This is one of the major reasons I hate 
editing verse. I both hate to allow bad grammar and I hate 
to destroy impressively inventive work.

The examples you cite are definitely and uncontroversially 
wrong.
 
> I know N. Nicholas' version is not the final one of the 
> text, but, as long as it is available to everyone under 
> KLI's permission and due to it comes from a reputed 
> connoisseur of Klingon, I believe in this 
> translation.

We always fall back to saying that it is no' Hol, in order 
to give the translators the benefit of the doubt, even when 
they have to use a certain percentage of bad grammar to fit 
rhyme and meter.

>     ghaHbe'wI'
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> http://www.latinmail.com.  Gratuito, latino y en espaņol.
 
charghwI'

Back to archive top level