tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 29 15:19:45 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ja'/jatlh
jatlh voragh:
> : puq ja' yaS choqIp'a'?
> : This would be incorrect.
>
> No, this *is* correct: "The officer tells the child, 'Will you hit me?'"
>
> From the TKD example {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'} we learn that {ja'} can also be
used
> in giving direct quotations, though {jatlh} may well be more common or
> preferred stylistically.
>
> : puqvaD jatlh yaS choqIp'a'?
> : This would be correct.
>
> "The officer says to the child, "Will you hit me?"
>
> : However,
> :
> : HoDvaD jatlh DeghwI' nujunta'.
>
> "The helmsman says to the captain, 'It has evaded us'."
>
> : HoD ja' DeghwI' nujunta'.
> : Both of these would be correct.
>
> "The helmsman tells the captain, 'It has evaded us'."
>
> How is this different from your "incorrect" {puq ja' yaS choqIp'a'}? Or
have I
> misunderstood you? (I admit not to have followed the previous thread
closely.)
Yes, I think you have. I am not saying they are grammatically incorrect. I
am describing what I think the difference IN MEANING (not grammar) is
between /ja'/ and /jatlh/. You'll notice that none of Okrand's /ja'/
sentences quote questions, but /jatlh/ sentences do. Even our English
translations are "tell, report" and "speak, say," repectively. These are
not identical words, so why do different Klingon words get different English
translations? I think Okrand wasn't just thinking about the English grammar
for his definitions, he was thinking about the difference in meaning.
I see by looking up the word "tell" that it largely involves the recipient
of the information or command having actually understood, or at least
received, whatever is "told." On the other hand, "say" and "speak" have
more general meanings: they indicate the expression of something verbally,
but have little connotation of a receiver of that information. Furthermore,
"report" is very specific compared to all of these.
I think that /ja'/ has a narrower meaning than /jatlh/. I wince when I see
large blocks of text, preceded by /ja' vay/ (and let's ignore, for now, the
fact that none of us is actually vocalizing to each other). They're not
reporting. Frequently, they're asking questions, or reciting poetry, or
some other thing. They're not "telling" us, and they're not "reporting."
They ARE "speaking" and "saying." I don't find it a coincidence that this
split can be made with Klingon verbs. Just like people had problems where I
used /legh/ for "look," I have a problem when I see /ja'/ for "say." It
isn't.
When I said /puq ja' yaS chopIp'a'/ WOULD be incorrect (that "would" is
there to indicate that this is a speculative/personalized thing, not a rule
I think must be followed blindly), I didn't mean that grammatically. I
meant it in regard to the meaning of the verb. At /qep'a' wejDIch/, people
had a problem with /retlhutlh/ for Scrabble, saying it didn't mean anything.
However, it's perfectly grammatical. And of course in this case you can
come up with an odd situation where /retlhutlh/ might make sense. It's
meaning I'm dealing with here, not grammar.
SuStel
Stardate 495.4