tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 16 20:04:58 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Use of topic as header
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 1:28 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Use of topic as header
>
>
> jatlh charghwI':
> > I think we would all do well to better understand what is meant by
> "topic".
> > I'm tempted to consider it to be a rough equivalent to an
> awkward "of" in
> > English.
>
> "Of" works in some cases, but I don't think it works just like you've
> suggested.
I agree. I'm trying to get a grip on this and I appreciate your insight.
> jatlh charghwI':
> > {Soj'e' Suja'chuq} "Of food we discuss."
>
> This one seems pretty clear, and using "of" works as a translation.
>
> jatlh charghwI':
> > {paq'e' jInaj.} "Of the
> > book I dream."
>
> I still don't know what this is supposed to mean, exactly. "I
> dream of the
> book"? "I dream about the contents of the book"? "The book is about my
> dream"? There has to be more context to let us know what this
> topic has to
> do with the rest of the sentence before it'll make sense.
>
> However, the English translation seems nearly as vague as to the
> meaning as
> the Klingon does, so it could be called a good translation.
Genuinely amusing.
> jatlh charghwI':
> >{Hut'e' Soch jIH.} "Of nine, I am seven."
>
> I still don't like this. Yes, "Seven" is in relation to "Nine," but that
> doesn't mean that "Nine" is always going to be the topic of the sentence.
>
> jatlh nov: SoH 'Iv?
> jatlh be': Hut'e' Soch jIH.
>
> Why is the topic of the woman's sentence "Nine"? No one was talking about
> nine, it was never a topic.
If the conversation went:
"Who are you?"
"I am Seven."
Then you'd be right. Meanwhile, if she said, "I am Seven of Nine," then
"Nine" IS the topic of the sentence. It is the whole point of her statement.
She is telling you that there are Nine to be considered. The topic of her
context of naming is Nine. Within that topic, she is Seven. If you talk
about anything but members of the Nine, then you are off topic, and within
your off-topic context, she is not Seven. She is only Seven within the
context of the Nine that are the topic of her statement. I honestly see this
as perhaps the most perfectly useful example of how the Topicalizer can be
used.
> The "of" in English seems to indicate a subset. In this case "Seven" is a
> member of "Nine." I don't think topics indicate sets for which
> the sentence
> indicates subsets.
I think Topic does a perfect job of declaring the scope of the context,
which is exactly what I'm doing here. I'm defining the world in which one
selects the subset of the set. That world is the set. If you go off topic,
talking about anything not in the set, then discussion of the subset lacks
meaning.
> Note that this is not the same thing that's going on in /qIbDaq SuvwI''e'
> SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS/. Here, the topic is warriors, and then a
> comparative is made. Vixis does not use /SuvwI''e'/ to create a set from
> which a subset is drawn. The set is in /Hoch/.
I disagree. The topic of warriors sets the scope of the environment within
which the comparison is made. We are not talking about cooks. That is off
topic. You might not be the most wonderful cook in the world. Taylors? Off
topic again. We are not talking about taylors. You might be a lousy tailor.
But if we are just talking about warriors, you are waaay cool. The most
wonderful warrior. The topic is warriors and while we are on that topic, you
are the most wonderful.
And we are not talking about Fifteen or Eight. Those would be off topic. We
are talking about Nine. And within the scope of Nine, I am Seven.
> > {yo' Soch'e' Qanqor
> > HoS law' Hoch HoS puS} "Krankor is the strongest person of the seventh
> > fleet."
>
> I like this one better, but your English translation hides the grammar of
> the Klingon. This is more akin to "Regading the seventh fleet, Krankor is
> the strongest." The context makes it pretty clear that you mean he's the
> strongest PERSON in the seventh fleet, but I don't think this
> comes through
> simply because of the choice of topic.
But again, I'm setting the boundaries of scope for the statement. Maybe
there's a guy in the Sixth Fleet that can whup Krankor's ass, but he's off
topic. The topic is the Seventh Fleet and within that context, Krankor kicks
butt and is without peer.
> One might have thought about this as
>
> yo' Soch yaS'e' Qanqor HoS law' Hoch HoS puS.
> Regarding the officers of the seventh fleet, Krankor is the strongest.
Of course, that would limit the scope to officers, and maybe I wanted to
include the enlisted men and women as well.
> "Of" only works in the English translation by coincidence in this case.
I'll accept that.
> I don't think a formula stating what the topic does to a sentence
> is really
> in order. I think if it's not clearly used for emphasis, the
> topic is just
> a topic. It's the matter in question. Just like in grade school
> you learn
> that the first sentence of a paragraph is supposed to be the "topic
> sentence," that which the whole paragraph is about, in Klingon the topic
> ending in /-'e'/ tells us what the sentence is about. I feel that
> consistently translating it as "of" doesn't always come out right.
That was just a suggestion. "of" is one of those very strange words in
English. Meanwhile, I really do see it as the perfect tool for establishing
the scope of the environment for a statement.
> SuStel
> Stardate 531.8
charghwI'
Stardate 542.4