tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 26 18:14:32 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: question about /neH/ "merely"
- From: Eric Andeen <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: question about /neH/ "merely"
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:14:12 -0700
jatlh De'vID:
> If I wanted to say, "The man is merely a merchant", should it be:
>
> 1) /Suy ghaH neH loD'e'/ or
> 2) /Suy neH ghaH loD'e'/ ?
>
> I am basing #1 on the rule (TKD 5.4), that
> "Unlike the other adverbials, neH follows the verb which it
> modifies. The semantic effect is one of trivializing the
> action." Since /ghaH/ is acting like a verb here, I figured
> it would follow the /ghaH/. However, does it make sense to
> trivialize the act of being?
If it helps, the pronoun as "to be" construction can often be thought of as
an equivalence between two things. If I say <matlh ghaH noHwI''e'>, I am
saying "The judge is Maltz" - they are the same person.
If the object is not unique, then the meaning shifts a bit - the pronoun
indicates membership in a class. <noHwI' ghaH matlh'e'> could mean "Maltz is
*the* judge", if there is only one, but more likely it means "Maltz is a
judge" - he is a member of the class of judges.
If you add <neH> to this (in either case), then you're trivializing the
equivalence relationship. In <Suy ghaH neH loD'e'>, you'd be saying that the
fact that he is a merchant is trivial, perhaps as if anyone could be one.
That seems to suit your meaning.
> Option #2 is based on the following rule (TKD 5.4 also), that
> "Also unlike the other adverbials, neH can follow a noun. In
> such cases, it means only, alone." However, I am not saying
> that the man is only a merchant, as opposed to being, say,
> both a merchant and a doctor. I am saying that he's merely a
> merchant. From the description in TKD it doesn't sound like
> the use of /neH/ after a noun has a trivializing effect the
> way it works on verbs, though.
You're right. Adding <neH> to the object simply means that the subject is
*only* that particular object, not something else. It does not explicitly
trivialize the action.
However, if you say <X neH ghaH Y'e'>, you may be trivializing Y anyway.
You're saying that Y is X, and only X. It allows Y no room to be anything
else (in this context). If X is something/someone unimportant, then so is Y.
With your example, if merchants are not in the higher classes of society (as
seems likely in Klingon culture), then <Suy neH ghaH loD'e'> might indeed be
a good translation of "The man is merely a merchant". In a society where
merchants are highly thought of, however, <Suy neH ghaH loD'e'> takes on a
different connotation. It's a cultural thing.
> Which one is right/better?
It's a fairly fine distinction in this case, but I think you want the first
one.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian