tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 21:50:21 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlh vay' vInuQ :)
ja' ...Paul:
>> "Angry mobs are destroying things."
>> "Mobs are stupid."
>> "If mobs could think, it would be a rare occurrence."
>>
>> Is "it" referring to the thinking, or to the destroying?
>
>Destroying. "If" does not indicate an action is occurring or will occur
>in the future. I think any English teacher would agree with me on this
>one.
You're so certain of this that I'm going to have to chalk this one down to
a fundamental difference in thought processes. I don't see anything in the
original Klingon sentence, the English paraphrases of it, or anyone's
subsequent explanations of the original intent that implies future action.
>If you wanted to refer to the act of thinking, the English would
>more likely be something like "It would be a rare occurrence *for* mobs to
>think."
Yes, that is a very good statement. It loses the idea that mobs probably
cannot think, but it is definitely unambiguous in its intent.
Unfortunately, it doesn't match any Klingon sentence very closely, because
it uses a clause as the subject of the sentence. The most obvious way I
can think of to translate something that would otherwise be a "sentence as
subject" is to say something like this:
If mobs could think, that event would be rare.
Hmm. It came out pretty much the way you're objecting to. Hmm.
>Or the event would be cast into a subject, "A mob that can think
>is a rare occurrence." I don't think the English is nearly as unclear as
>the Klingon.
But it's not the mob that the Klingon sentence was talking about. It's the
mob's *thinking*.
>> The literal translation of the Klingon is actually more helpful:
>> "If mobs can think, it is a rare occurrence."
>
>Ah, but you've not actually done a literal translation here... Don't
>forget /wanI'/ had the /-vetlh/ suffix. "If mobs can think, *that*
>occurrence is rare." or more closely related to your translation, "If mobs
>can think, that is a rare occurrence."
Fine. "If a mob can think, then that occurrence is rare." Still sounds
pretty straightforward to me, and still much less murky than the
"could/would" version.
>> There's no clear subjunctive in Klingon grammar.
>
>Then it should be recast to make sure the thought IS clear, no?
The thought IS clear, BECAUSE Klingon grammar lacks a simple counterpart of
English subjunctive. If you've been reading the original Klingon sentence
as a hypothetical, then that might be the source of your discomfort.
I'm pretty sure I understand what SuSvaj meant. I'm also pretty sure I
explained it a couple of days ago, in the {'aH tIQ} thread:
QublaHbe'law' ghom'a' QeH. chaq QublaH, 'ach...
QublaHchugh ghom'a' QeH vaj qubbej wanI'vetlh.
Maybe you'd understand it more clearly if I added some emphasis to the
English translation: "If an angry mob *can* think, that is certainly a
rare occurence." The implication is that mobs don't think, and even if
they do, that's something they don't do often.
>> >...(Okay, I'm really stretching thin on /Saja'chuqmoH/ -- how
>> >would you say "I discuss the language"?)
>>
>> Hol maqelmeH maja'chuq
>>
>> One person does not a discussion make. For that, {Hol qel SoQwIj}.
>
>But one person can *cause* a discussion.
You asked about "I discuss the language." That makes no sense if you use
the Klingon translation of "discuss, confer", because the word is {ja'chuq}
and requires a plural subject.
>/nuja'chuqmoH/ would be
>"he/she/it causes us to confer", no? But unfortunately there's no I->us
>prefix. /Saja'chuqmoH/ would be "I cause you(pl) to confer" -- is that
>not closer than "We confer in order to consider the language"?
Ugh. Those might theoretically be parseable, but I'd rather just throw
them out. They're very uncomfortable constructions to me.
>I'm not disputing your alternatives, I'm just wondering if you are saying
>that /Saja'chuqmoH/ is wrong because of a grammatical reason, or if you
>just disagree that one person can cause a discussion?
{Saja'chuqmoH} is grammatically twisted, but I can't quite say it's wrong.
I was merely pointing out that one person cannot confer.
-- ghunchu'wI'