tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 18 22:55:00 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC first post (p'an)



Jiri Baum wrote:

> Library (that's me, Qov):
> > I am imagining a Klingon trying to learn English, being told that "will"
> > in a sentence can either be an indefinite time stamp meaning an action
> > hasn't started yet (a weird concept for a speaker of a language that
> > doesn't have tense) OR it can be equivalent to -qang.  
>
> Hmm, look it up in a dictionary...
>
> In the 1st person, will is equivalent to -qang, shall is the time stamp.
>
> In the 2nd and 3rd persons, it's the other way around.

And this is supposed to make things clearer for our porr Klingon? :)

Your point about the grammar of will and shall is correct, but the only
people who know that are a) non-native English speakers and b) language
geeks.  I'm a native English speaking language geek and while I know the
rules regarding the strange crossover of will and shall, I consider the
usage archaic and would NEVER expect anyone, even a fellow language geek,
to recognize the distinction.

I considered mentioning the hypothetical Klingon being further confused by
trying to follow the will/shall rules, but I thought that not enough people
would know them, and it would only confuse an already digressing post. 

ghunchu'wI' wrote:

> In this case, I agree with you, but it's not always so obvious.  TKD's
> appendix of useful phrases includes a strikingly similar "Will you read my
> manuscript?"  The translation lacks the "willing" idea, being simply
> {ghItlh vIghItlhta'bogh DalaD'a'}.

And I suppose part of the reason the English is identical is that ther
isn't a lot of practical difference between, "Are you going to read my
manuscript?" and "Are you willing to read my manuscript?"

I've only just noticed that English has amazingly pathetic future tenses.
How do English speakers get BY?   The verb to go?  You can't make this
stuff up.

Qov


Back to archive top level