tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 22 10:55:17 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'e' vIneH
> A month or so ago, this was posted by SuStel:
>
> >Spoken by Azetbur during her meeting with her advisors. They were talking
> >about attacking instead of negotiating for help with the effects of the
> >destruction of Praxis. I believe her exact quote is /'e' neHbe' vavoy/,
> >though the subtitle reads, "That wasn't what my father wanted." A good
> >translation: using "daddy" in the English would have seemed silly.
"Dear Old Dad would not have wanted that."
> >Notice also that the rule that /'e'/ isn't used with /neH/ is broken,
> >presumably because it wasn't HER sentence she was referring to, and needed
> >SOME kind of object in there. I suspect this is common if using /neH/ to
> >add to someone else's sentence.
Likely, this is true. Okrand does say to study usage in order to understand the
grammar better.
> What if I wanted to use {neH} with a previous sentence of my own, as an
> afterthought, or at least separate thought:
>
> DIS veb "Europe" vIleng. 'e' vIneH.
> I'm travelling to Europe next year. At least I'd like to.
If you want to make sure it seems like a separate thought, add an explicit
object for {neH} so that slot can't be filled by the previous sentence:
DIS veb *Europe* vIleng. lengvetlh vIneH.
> When saying this aloud, I would pause, to indicate these were separate
> thoughts, and saying just {vIneH} after a pause seems to leave the verb with
> no object (that's how it feels to me, anyway). Although I guess it could be
> interpreted as a simple non-sequitur:
>
> I'm travelling to Europe next year. I want it.
>
> This leaves me thinking, 'Want what?'.
Do you want it separate or not? Just make up your mind and express your intent.
If you waffle, then it will sound like you are waffling.
> Please, no advice that I should just say:
>
> DIS veb "Europe" vIleng vIneH.
>
> Sure, when I'm sitting here writing, I could delete the punctuation and
> simply add {vIneH} But if I were speaking, I couldn't delete the pause I'd
> just made. (Just trying to forestall the inevitable "You're making it too
> complex" response.)
It sounds like you are fixating on a problem that a person speaking the
language would never worry about. You want there to be a shade of meaning that
people will pay special attention to in a place where conversational language
doesn't worry about such peculiarities.
When people talk in any language, they think while talking and much of what
they say is grammatically incorrect or imprecise, but since each phrase exists
within a larger context, as each phrase is parsed, it is compared to that
context. If it enhances or extends that context, it is accepted. If it is at
odds with the context and the continuing context continues to be at odds with
it, it is usually ignored. If it is less obviously at odds with the context,
the person talking with you will probably ask you to more precisely explain
what you meant.
This is why you must write more precisely than you talk. Writing is not
interactive. A reader doesn't get to ask you for clarification. Your context
must be self-consistent with exceptions explained fully enough for all the
context to hang together.
I'll also comment that when you say, "And please don't give me X advice..." it
sounds a bit presumptive on your part. It's like you want your problem to be so
special that it has to be handled just so.
In this list, we are all members. We meet as peers with widely varied talents
and experiences. Things are generally smoother when we don't try to control the
responses to what we've said by setting up criteria we want met before others
have their chance to respond as they are most naturally driven to respond. For
all you know, you might be shutting down a useful response from an angle
slightly different from that which you presumed.
That's not intended to be an attack; just simple advice. Ignore it if you
mistakenly find it offensive.
Will