tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 26 18:24:57 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: (KLBC) bIbergh / berghwI'
I agree with voragh on this one and would point out a bit of evidence he
doesn't focus on.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Boozer [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: (KLBC) bIbergh / berghwI'
>
>
> ghaHbe'wI' asks:
> : This question is not about syntax or grammar, but on the
> meaning of similar
> : structures.
>
> Since you're asking for opinions, I'll give you my cha' DarSeq.
>
> : I'd like to know what you understand from these sentences:
> : 1- bIbergh
> : 2- berghwI' SoH
> : Do these sentences have different meanings? Do they emphasize something
> : or both are neutral?
>
> They do have different meanings however they are both neutral statements
> grammatically. This is how you would emphasize {SoH} in each:
>
> bIbergh SoH.
> berghwI' SoH'e'.
>
> : In my opinion, sentence 1 is neutral, while 2 emphasizes {SoH}. Also,
>
> Well, no. 2 "emphasizes" {SoH} only in comparison to no. 1 but
> not by itself.
>
> : sentence 2, due to {-wI'}, means that being irritable is an inherent
> : personality trait of {SoH}.
>
> Here I agree with you; logically, this makes sense. Sentence 1
> seems to refer
> to the moment, while 2 seems to refer to a perceived trait. I
> say "seems to"
> because we do have two examples of {nep} from TKD:
>
> bInep
> You lie. You're lying.
>
> nepwI' Daba'
> He is obviously lying.
> (lit. "He is behaving as (acting in the manner of) a liar.")
>
> N.B. "He is obviously lying" not "He is obviously a liar (by
> nature)." The
> translation depends on context since the second seems to be referring to a
> specific statement just made, judging by Okrand's own translation.
Note here that he didn't say {nepwI' ghaHba'}. He said {nepwI' Daba'.} This
implies that the temporary nature of the act of lying in this instance
relates to the verb. He is acting like a liar. A liar is one who generally
lies. If he generally lies, then he'd be a liar, but in this case, he is
merely acting in the manner of a liar by this one act of lying.
...
> As I said, logically your feeling that {berghwI' SoH} implies an inherent
> personality trait makes sense... at least to this non-native
> speaker. However,
> natives aren't always logical and may not perceive the literal
> meaning of their
> words (e.g. double negatives are a good example of this). To be
> certain, we
> need to ask Maltz if Klingons perceive the distinction and, if
> so, whether it's
> a feature of careful vs. careless speech (again, like double negatives in
> English).
Agreed, though I do see what we already have as evidence of this difference.
There is a difference between the verb {Da} and a pronoun used as the verb
"to be". One acts in the manner of another when the other exhibits the
behavior more consistently over a longer time than the one who is merely
acting in that manner.
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
SarrIS