tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 31 20:06:58 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: (KLBC) Use of {-vaD}
I think the most culturally appropriate way to say, "I think that Mara is
beautiful," in Klingon is to say {'IH mara'.} Let's not be vague, wittering
and indecisive here. We don't have to say {'IHlaw' mara'} or {'IH mara' 'e'
vIQub} (which might be better stated {'IH mara' 'e' vIHar}). Just say {'IH
mara'.}
In this case, I think that the Klingon sense of deixis sufficiently covers
this mamby-pamby Human reflex to politely soften the opinion by openly
stating what is already obvious: Anything you say is your opinion. A Klingon
knows this. Why be redundant by stating it?
In English, if I say, "I was here last night," the implied deixis tells us
that the person speaking was at the place the person speaking now is
standing on the previous night. You don't have to say, "I was here, where I
am now standing, last night." That's redundant. "Here" already means "where
I am now standing". So when I say, "Mara is beautiful", I'm already implying
that this is my opinion. I don't have to restate that by saying, "to me" or
"in my opinion" or "from my perspective". What other perspective would you
be speaking from, if not your own?
In fact, if I honestly believed that Mara was beautiful in the kind of
universal way that steps beyond "I think that Mara is beautiful," then I'd
probably say something like {'IHchu' mara' net Sov.} Now, I've explicitly
expanded the deictic reference to make this a universal statement intended
to imply that anyone would believe this, rather than the more typical case
where one states one's own opinion boldly and lets the world decide whether
to agree and accept a free drink at the bar, or disagree and start mu'qaD
veS, a food fight or something more dire and dangerous, probably involving
sharp, pointy blades, bludgeons or energy weapons that don't have "stun"
among the available configuration settings.
charghwI' 'utlh
-----Original Message-----
From: d'Armond Speers [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:44 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: (KLBC) Use of {-vaD}
> ja' ghaHbe'wI':
> >paghvaD Hon wa' vIghelmeH jabbI'IDvam vIqonta'. lugh'a'
> mu'tlheghmey veb:
>
> chaq lugh, 'ach QIv 'e' vIQub jIH.
>
> >1) jIHvaD 'IH mara.
>
> This might makes me think that Mara is all dolled up for a date with you.
> It might be better to say something like {'IH mara 'e' vIQub}.
Or {'IHlaw' mara}.
> >2) ghot law'vaD moH Humanpu'.
>
> While I'm able to tease the intended meaning out of this, I don't like it
> much at all. Like the first one, {moH Humanpu' 'e' luQub ghot law'} or a
> similar phrase.
>
> >1a) To me {mara} is pretty.
> > (I believe that {mara} is pretty)
> >
> >2a) To many people Humans are ugly.
> > (Many people believe that Humans are ugly)
> >
> >I'm applying Latin grammar to {tlhIngan Hol}, specifically the dative
case
> >to the the noun sufix {-vaD}. I know that it is the kind of thing one
must
> >avoid, but to me both sentences make sense...
>
> Why not say it the way you have explained it in parentheses? The {-vaD}
> suffix is supposed to indicate the beneficiary of an action, and its use
> as an indirect-object marker probably shouldn't be expanded beyond that.
I believe TKD explains that "I believe..." is a possible interpretation of
{-law'} (as in {'IHlaw' mara}). Do we have any examples of it applying to
more than just the speaker, as in {moHlaw' Humanpu'} to mean something like
"we believe" or "it is generally believed"? {moH Humanpu' net Qub} is fine,
just wondering.
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
-- Holtej 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol mailing list FAQ:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm