tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 24 13:38:05 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghargh ngaSwI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ghargh ngaSwI'
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:37:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:22:28 EST [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/21/2000 5:46:25 PM Central Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << You can orbit a planet.
>
> You can go around a planet.
>
> You can't go a planet.
>
> You can orbit in a spaceship.
> >>
> Similarly, I would not claim that a Klingon verb which does include a
> prepositional concept could be translated into English with just any
> preposition. Although I can "go the planet" using <<ghoS,>> I would not say
> that I can "go around the planet" using <<ghoS.>> I would have to find a
> different Klingon verb, one which translates differently into English and/or
> Irish. <<juS>> might work for "go by the planet." <<bav>> should work for
> "go around the planet," but only if we are talking about "orbiting" it. Is
> there a Klingon verb which means "go around the planet" other than specifying
> "orbiting the planet?" What verb would I use to say "I go around the planet
> on the ground, by car, for example."? I might use <<jaH>> or <<mej>> or
> <<tlheD>> to say "go from the planet." OTOH, when I have seen <<jaH>> mean
> "go from," I have always seen the noun suffix -vo', for example, <<yuQvo'
> jaH.>>
You speak as if you are arguing against my point, all while
agreeing with me completely. The point I was arguing
against was the temptation to fill in ANY noun with a verb,
grammatically treating the noun as a direct object and
leaving the listener/reader to figure out the prepositional
relationship for themselves. This is simple laziness and it
doesn't work. We have exactly two sources for understanding
the acceptable relationship between any given verb and its
appropriate direct objects:
1. The word lists and their glosses/definitions
2. Observed use of the verb in canon
You can't just ignore that and use a verb however you want
to. There is temptation to use {jeS} as if it meant
"participate in", but we've never seen Okrand use it like
that and that is not how it is defined. Until he defines it
as "participate in" or until he uses it in canon that way,
we have to use it the way it is presented: "participate".
Note that in English, the word "participate" cannot take a
direct object. "participate in" is a verb followed by a
preposition, and you can't just assume that if you mash an
event next to {jeS} as if it were the direct object, that
you've accomplished speaking Klingon meaningfully. You are
instead speaking a dialect that is wholly yours, thereby
dividing the community of Klingon speakers between those
who speak ta' Hol and those who speak Xardana Hol.
> Some of the entries in the dictionary COULD be translated differently from
> the simple gloss. I have seen some discussion saying that this is dangerous,
> that we should learn just the meaning written in the dictionary.
We should learn the meaning written in the dictionary,
further elaborated by observed use in canon. The dictionary
definition of {Dub} suggests that perhaps it doesn't take a
direct object. "I study so that I can improve." Meanwhile,
in canon, all examples use a direct object such that the
same example should be {jIDub'eghmeH jIHaD} or {laHwIj
vIDubmeH jIHaD}. Unless we see {Dub} used with no direct
object, it is probably not wise to use it that way
ourselves.
> Mr. Okrand himself shows that <<ghoS>> means more than "approach."
He shows us that in the gloss.
Because that gloss is so multi-directional, I worked at
trying to understand it for quite some time. During one of
those rare moments when I actually had a chance to talk
with Okrand about the language, I asked him if he thought I
was understanding the verb well. I told him that I thought
the verb basically meant, "to move along a specific path"
and that the direct object of {ghoS} is a noun associated
with that path, usually, but not always the destination. He
smiled and said that he thought I had a very good
understanding of that word.
I could see how it would be difficult to express as a gloss
in a style similar to the rest of the words in the language.
> Obviously, "approach" can take a direct object. When we translate <<ghoS>>
> as "go," we THINK we have to say "go to," "go toward."
There is no dictionary gloss in which Okrand defines {ghoS}
as the lone verb "go". If you have it as such in your
personal dictionary, you might want to go back and research
the original sources.
> The simple "go the
> planet" does not sound right to English-speakers. When we translate <<He
> ghoS,>> we say "proceed along a course.>> Leaving out "along" does not sound
> right to us.
We also have a substantial number of examples of Okrand
using the verb {ghoS}; far more than we do for most verbs.
By studying the usage, we can understand the verb fairly
well. Our conclusions about how to use {ghoS} do not depend
upon intuitive leaps and lazy desires to make translation
easier. We know this verb. A verb like {jeS} is much more
challenging because we don't have examples of it in use,
and the gloss definition does not make it as useful as we'd
like. Sentences we create using it sound awkward to our
English-speaking mind because we are so accustomed to
saying "participate in" that we nearly consider the
preposition to be part of the verb. Meanwhile, it isn't.
We have to work with what we have. Okrand often gives us
more and we adjust, but until he gives us more, we have to
just wait.
> Oh well, it is late. And my major is Art, not Linguistics.
>
> Xardana
charghwI'