tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 02 20:18:03 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Delbogh mu' pojtaH
Sheesh. You specifically asked for comments and suggestions. When I give
some, all you seem to want to do is find them wrong.
Where is the value in someone offering his comments or suggestions, if
you're just going to try to invalidate them?
----- Original Message -----
From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: Delbogh mu' pojtaH
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> > From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> > > /vuQbogh/ "which fascinates none/he/she/it/them" might be sufficient.
> > > Perhaps, though, it is not sufficient to say that this is a good
pattern.
> > > If you as the listener had no interest in the language, the
presumption
> > > that the /Hol chu'/ might /vuQ/ you may be against the Klingon code.
> >
> > I also think it's useless to try to argue language usage based on what
might
> > or might not "be against the Klingon code." How do you determine that?
How
> > can someone disagree? You could say that anything at all might be
against
> > the Klingon code, and it's no more valid than what I think is against
the
> > Klingon code. What if I think that a Klingon would say /vuQbogh Hol/
> > "fascinating language (and I dare you to contradict me!)"?
>
> Aye, but that's why I said "may be" :) I wasn't trying to argue for the
> usage based solely on that kind of thing. I was exploring the possibility
> that it might be a factor.
And I wasn't trying to argue that you were arguing based solely on that kind
of thing. The "solely" part was added by you. I don't think you can use
"it's not Klingon" as a factor in determining features of Klingon, because
you have no special insight into what "is Klingon." Any such argument, even
as a mere facet of a larger argument, is completely subjective.
> > > But can this be made into a pattern?
> >
> > Here's the big question: why SHOULD it be made into a pattern? The
> > "official" way of saying something? The "accepted" way? Why not just
make
> > sentences that express what you want to express? Make sure it's
appropriate
> > to the situation.
>
> Actually, I think my conclusion was that it couldn't be made into a
> pattern, as I state in this paragraph a little later:
>
> > > I think we have a winner -- and simultaneously, a loser. I think we
have
> > > a winner in that I believe -bogh can probably be used in almost all
cases
> > > where we want to translate "the <verb>ing foo". But at the same time,
the
> > > pattern is not consistent. Based on how the form is used, the verb
prefix
> > > may have to change, additional verb suffixes may have to be added.
The
> > > English accomplishes most of this through context, but the Klingon
must be
> > > a little more specific. Perhaps one of the few places in the language
> > > where English actually takes more from context than Klingon.
>
>
> > I think you've made too many unsupported assumptions: that Klingon must
be
> > more specific than English, that there should be a Klingon construction
that
> > mimics English participles, even that you can point to "the Klingon
code" to
> > shape your understanding of the language. I see no reason why you can't
>
> I have not assumed Klingon "must" be more specific than English. My
> conclusion was that in this case, Klingon is a little more specific than
> the English counterpart.
I stand corrected then. However, I disagree with your conclusion. The
"English counterpart" you mention is your own proposed construction for a
general "Xing Y." It's only more specific because you've chosen not to
accept that "Xing Y" necessarily means the same as "Y that Xes." Otherwise
I could say that
vuQbogh Hol
muvuQbogh Hol
---and---
"language which fascinates"
"language which fascinates me"
exhibit exactly the same relationship between their parts. I can express
exactly the same concept in English, with exactly the same precision.
> Whether or not there "should be" a Klingon
> construction that mimics participles was the whole purpose of the message
> -- to see if there was one, not to prove that there must BE one.
>
> And I think if you remove "the Klingon code" from the equation, you lose
> perspective, and find yourself MORE inclined to try and draw direct
> parallels between Klingon and English. If we removed the conceptual
> background of the language from our discussions, why would the translation
> of English idioms be discouraged? The argument for that is normally that
> the English idiom wouldn't make sense "to a Klingon". Why then would you
> want to ignore the Klingon perspective when discussing grammar?
I don't think you understand the idea here. I do not claim to know what
idioms do or do not make sense to a Klingon BEYOND WHAT MARC ORKAND HAS
REVEALED. He has shown us a lot of idioms, and most of them are not
guessable.
This goes both ways. Idioms are idioms because they are peculiar to a
language. In fact, that's exactly how my dictionary defines idiom: "a form
of expression peculiar to a language." Thus, English idioms are peculiar to
English. If they exist in Klingon, then they're not peculiar to English.
Idioms usually do not translate sensibly. If I say "I'm going to go hit the
sack" to an English speaker, he knows I mean I'm going to sleep. If I say
/ngaSwI' vIqIp/ to a Klingon, he has no idea what I mean. It can be
translated literally: "I will hit a container," but it doesn't have anything
to do with sleeping.
I do not propose removing the Klingon background from discussion of grammar.
I'm saying we shouldn't add our personal interpretations of how that
background works and how it affects the linguistic behavior of the language.
At the very least such things should not be used as analysis of how their
language works without being much, much more guarded in our statements than
you were.
Thus, you cannot directly translate English idioims, because this is not
English. It's Klingon, and it belongs to the Klingons. Only Klingons (via
Okrand) can inform us how their values affect the linguistic structure of
their language.
Certain people, for instance, voice their belief that Klingons prefer
actions over things. Therefore, they say, it's better style to use a verb
instead of a noun. Certainly, canon shows evidence that verbs are more
heavily relied upon than in English. However, saying Klingon is
verb-centric is a far cry from declaring that using a verb over a noun is
better Klingon style. And any leanings in that direction should come from
an examination of canon, not from an observation that Klingons like action
above else.
> > just use the tools of Klingon to say what you mean-irrespective of how
it's
> > said in English. That's the real test of what works in Klingon: if you
can
> > say it without any reference to English grammar or English translations,
> > using only what's appeared in TKD and canon, then it's good Klingon. At
> > that point we reach the "we don't know how Klingons actually do it"
wall.
> > At that wall, one should be allowed to use one's own interpretation. We
> > don't know if there's any taboo on saying /vuQbogh Hol/ "fascinating
> > language," but it fits perfectly with all known rules and observed
usages,
> > so it should be allowed to stand. Who's going to tell me I can't say
> > /vuQbogh Hol/?
>
> I am. :) Just kidding. But that's the whole point of a discussion,
> isn't it? To explore these ideas, these interpretations, more
> importantly, these assumptions.
That's what I thought, but you seem not to want to hear my comments.
You also always take the bait to that question. When asked who's got the
authority to declare something, you always say it's you. I know you're
joking, but it still makes my point: that you DON'T have that authority, and
neither do I, and the only place we can find it is with Okrand. Language is
incredibly tied up with culture. Okrand gives us the language. If we're
allowed to insert our own culture, how does this differ from adding to the
language ourselves? No, we must wait for Okrand on how the culture affects
the language, as well.
> > I can see no semantic difference between English "language which
fascinates"
> > and "fascinating language." And since we KNOW that /vuQbogh Hol/ means
> > "language which fascinates," it follows that it can be said to mean
> > "fascinating langauge." This is an issue of translation, not of what
> > Klingon can do.
>
> I disagree on two points -- your last sentence first, I see issues of
> translation to be directly related to "what Klingon can do". The limits
> of the Klingon language are tested by translation. It is when someone
> attempts to translate a concept from one language, such as a participle,
> to Klingon that we determine whether or not it is possible to express the
> same concept in Klingon.
I cannot disagree with this more. First, a participle isn't a concept, it's
a grammatical structure. Going to sleep is a concept. Hitting the officer
is a concept.
If you said the limits of the Klingon language are tested by its ability to
express concepts, I would have agreed.
In trying to express a concept, it is totally, completely irrelevant how
that concept might be expressed in another language. If I want to talk
about my age in Spanish, I don't check English to see how it's done first.
Likewise, if I want to talk about a "fascinating language" in Klingon, I
should construct the meaning in Klingon, totally ignoring how it's
constructing in English.
In Klingon, I can /ghIQ/ and I can /ghIQHa'/. In English, I have no
equivalent pair of utterances I'm aware of. I have to say 'I go on
vacation" and "I return from vacation." They're expressed differently, but
they're the same concepts.
> There are numerous examples in which we have
> already determined Klingon to be somewhat deficient -- at least to the
> point where the grammatical structure needs to be recast to convey a
> similar concept, but sometimes even that falls short in conveying the
> exact idea. The English concept of tense tends to be one that cannot
> always be exactly translated exactly, though there are various mechanisms
> for conveying a "close enough" translation.
THAT IS NOT A DEFICIENCY! The only way in which Klingon has been shows to
be deficient is in the lack of many areas of vocabulary. So what if I don't
have a parallel structure for "the ship in which I fled"? You can say it in
other ways. The exact same concept can be expressed with different
grammatical structures in the two languages.
> The second point I disagree with is the line just before that, or at least
> the implication you make there. I agree that /vuQbogh Hol/ means "the
> language which fascinates" and that it could be equivalent to "the
> fascinating language". Indeed, that was really the entire point of my
> message. What I disagree with is the fact that you so glibly make the
> assumption that because the English can be recast so easily, that the
> Klingon must automagically be acceptable in both cases.
Perhaps by now you've caught on to the point. Unless you can show me how
"the language which fascinates" and "the fascinating language" differ in
MEANING in English, I see no reason why, to express that meaning, you cannot
choose any appropriate structure in Klingon, and why that structure cannot
be the translation for either phrase. One simply need not translate
grammar.
> As you stated, my post made several assumptions, but in return you have
> made several of your own. You are making the assumption that the two
> English forms are, in fact, equivalent,
I agree, this is an assumption I have made. I assume that their meaning is
the same. If that is incorrect, if you can put together a meaning I have
not thought of, and if those differences in meaning are not present in the
Klingon phrase, I'll agree that the phrase is not an exact equivalent.
> and you are making the assumption
> that because A translates directly to B and B is effectively equal to C,
> that A can translate directly to C.
If by "translates directly" you mean "has the same grammar as," and by
"effectively equal" you mean "has the same meaning as," then I say that "A
is effectively equal to C." I do not say "A translates directly to C" if I
use those term definitions. I also say "A is a valid translation of C,"
which means if English speaker says A, Klingon speaker can say C, and
parties B and D get exactly the same meaning out of it.
> This may be a valid assumption in
> this case, or even many other cases, but is not guaranteed, and needs to
> be borne out through explanation and examination.
Certainly. No question there. But be concerned with what a sentence MEANS,
not with whether its grammar is the same as in English. Yes, you can look
at similarity in grammar, too, but I believe I responded to all that in my
first post.
> There are several
> places where this is NOT true, the most obvious ones to my mind have to do
> with verb prefix use. Where English does not make some distinctions,
> Klingon does, and if you use the A = B = C method of translation, you are
> apt to miss the key differences.
>
> The key difference I would make between the two English forms is exactly
> the kind of difference that would show up in the Klingon translation. The
> participle form in English takes no direct object, and cannot take one
> when used as an adjective. In Klingon, because we do NOT have a real
> participle form, we are forced into a relative clause form where objects
> may be present, either explicitly named or implicitly identified through
> verb prefix. This may break your A = B = C argument, because what has one
> form in English may have two, more specific forms in Klingon:
>
> DuvuQbogh Hol vIyajbe'
> nuvuQbogh Hol vIyajbe'
> vuQbogh Hol vIyajbe'
> "I don't understand the fascinating language."
>
> If translating from Klingon to English, the above may be considered
> correct in all cases. Translating from English to Klingon, which form
> would be correct? Are all three correct? Taken only from the limited
> context, it is quite possible that all three could be "correct", but all
> three have different implications (whereas the English may have a
> connotation, the Klingon has more explicit implications).
I let this stand up against my arguments above.
> What my original post actually attempted to show, and admittedly, my
> meandering style probably did not punctuate, is that the English
> participle form CAN be translated into Klingon by using the relative
> clause form, but care may need to be taken to ensure that the implied
> objects of the verb used in this form are properly identified.
With this conclusion I certainly agree, though I don't agree with how you
got there.
> Somehow, it seems you have managed to simultaneously agree and disagree
> with me at the same time. I get the sense that you agree /vuQbogh Hol/
> can effectively substitute for the participle "the fascinating language"
> but disagree that the various, more specific forms are acceptable? Or is
> that you just don't feel they're necessary? Or were you just pissed you
> had to read more than 25 lines of text to find something you had already
> known or concluded? :)
None of the above. I think that /vuQbogh Hol/ or /muvuQbogh Hol/ or
anything else that you deem appropriate may be used as a correct
translation. If it expresses the meaning and follows the rule of grammar,
it's irrelevant how you got there.
SuStel
Stardate 3671.6
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}
![[Hol po'wI']](/pics/level3_big.png "[Hol po'wI']"){kind=small}