tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 07 04:59:38 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Expelling Ambiguity
From: "Will Martin" <[email protected]>
> Good response.
bIroj DaneHba'. 'e' vIvuv, vaj jIroj je. mayeqDI' SoH jIH je
matlhetlhlaw'.
> > To futher muddy the waters, I'm not convinced that a noun with
> > /-'e'/ in the
> > subject or object positions can't be indicating a topic. The examples
we
> > have tend to demonstrate emphasis, but examples aren't conclusive, and
the
> > examples we have can, in some cases, be interpreted either way.
>
> I can't really argue with you on this. I'm just staying overly
conservative,
> because, well, SOMEBODY ought to. I feel like I can do without extending
the
> language here, though I'm definitely uncertain that the language doesn't
> stretch past here as you suspect.
vuDvam vIvuv.
> > nuH'e' nuD SuvwI'. jej. tIq. HoS. ghaytan Hoch jaghpu'Daj
> > HoHlaH SuvwI'
> > lo'chugh.
> > The warrior examimed the weapon (topic). It was sharp, long, and
strong.
> > The warrior could probably kill all his enemies if he used it.
>
> My problem with this interpretation is that my limited understanding of
> "topic" is that it really is best translated as a separate phrase, like
"As
> for the weapon", which, like the Klingon example we do have explained in
> TKD, stands apart from the rest of the sentence. To translate it thusly,
we
> need apposition. "As for the weapon, the warrior examined it." It doesn't
> work to say, "The warrior examined the as for the weapon." Meanwhile, it
> definitely works for me to interpret this as "The warrior examined the
> WEAPON." That's focus instead of topic, though.
I think that this analysis can only be done when translating to English.
You've brought the sentence into English, and then examined its properties
of topic or emphasis. You've looked at Okrand's TRANSLATIONS and made your
analysis.
But my sentence was conceived of in Klingon, using the tool /-'e'/, which we
don't have in English. When dealing with the sentence only in Klingon, I
can't see any reason why /-'e'/ as subject or object shouldn't be able to
mark a topic. Klingon has to be internally consistent, but it doesn't have
to follow the grammatical rules or tendencies of other languages.
Okrand did mention /-'e'/ in one of his interviews, but I'm of the opinion
that he was shown evidence of his translations of /-'e'/ being more of focus
than of topic, and responded with something akin to "Yeah, looks like focus
to me!" Still, if he suddenly announced, unambiguously, that focus is focus
and topic is topic, and never the twain shall meet, I'd be disappointed, but
I could live with it.
> I recognize that you are thinking that while my interpretation may be one
of
> several valid uses of topic, there may be others. You are not interested
in
> challenging the validity of my interpretation. You want to add to that
> another possible use of "topic" so that it does not need to be exclusive.
mayajchuqbej.
> Maybe you can help me to understand that [between focus and topic]
difference better. I'm open to the
> idea.
yajtaHghachwIj Doj law' yajtaHghachlIj Doj puS 'e' vItem.
> Now, does my model of the language make sense to you? I'm not asking so
much
> if you agree with it than I am if it is at least clear where I'm coming
> from.
qayajchu'. majQa'.
SuStel
Stardate 1348.4