tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 06 19:13:30 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: -law' (was KLBC)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 1:17 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: -law' (was KLBC)
>
>
> ja' De'vID:
> >It's not so much the deitic context that is bothering me as the
> >fact that the word "apparently" is being interpreted as something
> >broader than "with uncertainty". I can agree that the /-law'/
> >is qualified from the Klingon Science Guy's point of view, but
> >I have difficulty accepting that he's expressing uncertainty
> >rather than perception. "The ship apparently disappears" doesn't
> >necessarily mean "The ship disappears but I am not certain about
> >that", but rather "The ship is perceived to have disappeared."
> >The Klingon Science Guy should know with certainty just what
> >the ship is actually doing.
I'm impressed with this depth of thought. majQa'.
> I was thinking along those lines myself, but I hadn't quite gotten around
> to putting anything down in words. The Skybox reference does seem to be
> using {-law} to talk about illusion as opposed to uncertainty.
>
> I guess we'll have to live with it as an example, even if it might not be
> perfectly in step with the rules as written. I'll probably end up being
> extremely careful about my use of {-law'} now, but I don't think I'll have
> difficulty understanding the intent behind a phrase like {machlaw' ghew
> 'ach tInbej}.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
Let's look at this from a cleaner slate, carrying fewer presuppositions with
us. Look at the three suffixes we have in this particular Type:
-law'
-bej
-chu'
You both want these to simply mean three levels of certainty about the truth
of the statement. Meanwhile, the glosses have never really fit that neat
construction very well. Notice that in TKD page 39, this class is not
referred to as "Certainty". It is referred to as "Qualification".
It is true that the description of the grammar heavily suggests degree of
certainty for {-law'} in particular, on page 40. Meanwhile, I can definitely
read this description as a suggestion for an expanded meaning from what the
gloss would suggest. It can mean "seemingly, apparently" or in addition to
that, it can be used to describe any degree of uncertainty. Notice that
{-chu'} and {-bej} do not get any parallel description. The gloss alone is
supposed to be enough. Why talk about {-law'} when he hasn't talked about
the other two?
But "clearly" and "perfectly" sound more like words relating to quality of
perception than to rational certainty of a fact. Hmmm. "Qualification". Also
"seemingly, apparently" can definitely fit well in either model of certainty
or quality of perception.
So, how well do we understand the verb {ngab}. Does it mean to become
invisible, or does it mean to physically cease to exist, or does it mean to
go away? The English word can mean either:
The liquid acetone dissappeared before it reached the floor. It ceased to
exist.
The prizoner disappeared from his cell. He went away.
The crystal ball dissappeared as it fell into the swimming pool. It became
invisible.
If stating that the ship disappeared means to become invisible, then your
quandry makes sense.
If it means to cease to exist or to go away, then the speaker knows that the
senses tell him that the ship has ceased to exist or it has gone away, all
while the speaker knows that the ship has not ceased to exist and it has not
gone away. It merely APPEARS to have done that.
Please trust that I'm not trying to annoy anyone here. I'm just trying to
stretch my mind around a potentially beautiful alien perspective on a piece
of language.
charghwI'