tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 01 18:33:42 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Ruehlaender [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 12:56 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
>
>
>
> > > > >HewDaq jIlegh.
> > > > >I look at the statue.
> >
>
> jatlh charghwI':
> > Yuck. Would you also say {jaghDaq jISuv.}? Or how about {HIqDaq
> jItlhutlh.}
> > You have added {-Daq} for no reason. {Hew vIlegh} is what you
> wanted. The
> > statue is the simple direct object of "see". {legh} doesn't
> mean "look". It
> > means "see". There's a difference. Yes, you might "look at" a
> statue, but
> > you don't "see at" a statue. You just see it.
> >
> > I'd think she was some alien doing a piss poor job of speaking
> Klingon. That
> > obviously should be {Hew yIlegh! vIHtaH!}
> >
> > charghwI'
> >
> alright, I'm going to backoff a little (mainly because I'll take
> a vacation
> soon :) and agree that {legh} probably isn't the right verb to chose here.
>
> however, I believe, that if you use it in imperative mode, as in {yIlegh},
> you are essentially using it with the "look" meaning, too.
I'm quite curious as to where you get this idea.
> IMO, one cannot be ordered to "see" something one doesn't see.
> Any command to have a sensation is semantically void.
I think we are having a cultural problem here as much as a grammatical one.
"See this! Taste this! Smell this! Feel this!" These are all quite
symantically valid.
> In English you "should" say "Look at the statue!", "Look at Spot
> runnning!"
I simply disagree. Both verbs are valid in their own right, but the big
difference between them is that "see" is transitive and "look" is
intransitive. You don't look anything. You just look. You do see things. You
look at the things you see, but that adds an unnecessary preposition which
is exactly what is confusing this whole issue.
Klingons don't have a word for "look". They only have a word for "see" and
if you want to use the word "look" in English and translate it into Klingon,
you need to figure out how to recast the thought using the verb {legh} which
means "see" and not try to twist the word {legh} around as if it also meant
"look". This is the crux of my arguement. Please focus on this and perhaps
we may come to agree.
> That "See!" can double up for this meaning is essentially a result of its
> not making sense otherwise.
I believe that Okrand recognized that "look" and "see" are different verbs
with different relationships to their objects, and if a language were to
only use one of these, then the word "see" would be more productive, and so
Klingon only has a word for "see" and it doesn't need a word for "look",
though if you translate a sentence that uses "look" you will need to make
some minor recasting in order to use {legh} properly.
> "See Spot run!" works, but "He sees Spot run." doesn't mean the
> same as "He looks at Spot running." at all.
You are basically arguing that these are different:
qet Spot 'e' legh.
qetbogh Spot legh.
or maybe you are referring to
Spot legh qetbogh loD.
Your English sentence is a little ambiguous.
Whatever the case the thing you need to accept is that there is no Klingon
verb for "look". You won't find it in anything Okrand has written, unless it
is a recasting of something that could be more directly translated as "see"
with {legh}. Klingon only has {legh} and it only means "see" but that is
enough to convey any sentence using "look" if it is properly recast during
translation. This is the difference between translation and encoding.
Klingon is not a code. It is a language. Some verbs are "missing" and
related verbs fill in with recasting.
> That said, I repeat that probably {Hew yIbej!} is the right way to
> say "Look at the statue!", or is it?
It works quite well. It does have the connotation for me that some change is
expected soon or that I'm somehow expected to have some sort of response
when some change occurs, since that is usually why you watch things. I can
see a photograph, for example, but it would be very strange to watch a
photograph. Meanwhile, if I tell you to see the woman standing over there, I
may just want you to enjoy the stylish helmet she's wearing, while if I tell
you to watch the woman over there, there is a sense of expectation that the
viewing will occur over a span of time and that the thing one watches for is
some sort of change.
"See this egg," works to just note its size, color, shape, etc. "Watch this
egg," definitely creates anticipation that it will hatch or finish cooking
or whatever.
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]
charghwI'