tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 17 15:26:22 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: wej (adv)
- From: "De'vID jonwI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: wej (adv)
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:41:39 -0400
- Bcc:
>>> wej vIlegh
>>> I don't see him yet. TKD
De'vID:
>>I've always been bothered by the homophony with <wej> "three".
Voragh:
>Are you bothered by the homophony of English "two"/"too"/"to"? "I see two"
>and "I see too" sound exactly the same. How do you keep them straight in
>English?
>
>How about "one"/"won"? Or "four"/"for"/"for"? Or "eight"/"ate"? Or
>"none"/"nun". Etc.
Well, "two" and "too" in English don't often occur in the same
position in the sentence, and even when they do, their meanings
are sufficiently different that they can be easily distinguished.
You wouldn't confuse "I see two" with "I see too" because they
wouldn't occur in the same context. If the speaker meant "too"
as in "also", he'd probably say "I see them too". There would
be an object in that position that would allow us to tell that
"too" meant "also" and not the number. If he meant "I see (i.e.
understand) also" then "I see two (the number)" wouldn't make
sense.
On the other hand, <wej> occurs in exactly the same place for
a number and for "not yet", and in many instances can be read
either way. I was reading something on Qov's blog a while back
and she was studying three of something (I forget what now),
but it took me several sentences to understand whether she
meant "three" or whether she hadn't started studying yet. I
suppose it's also a problem with the transcription system: "two"
and "too" are spelled differently in English, whereas in the
Okrandian transcription <wej> is written the same either way.
Perhaps <wej> meaning "not yet" and <wej> meaning "three" are
written differently in pIqaD.
De'vID:
>>If someone was on look-out and he says <wej vIlegh> how am
>>I supposed to know if that means "I don't see him/her/them yet"
>>or "I see three of them"?
Voragh:
>You ask. If it's a number, add the noun: {wej 'avwI' vIlegh}.
But that could also mean "I don't see the guard yet".
De'vID:
>>Context in that case wouldn't really help.
Voragh:
>Sure it does. What prompted the utterance? Why does he say anything at
>all?
>
>If it's an answer to something you've asked, then your question provides
>the context:
>
>Q. DaH Dalegh'a'?
>A. wej vIlegh.
>
>Q. ('avwI') 'ar Dalegh?
>A. wej vIlegh.
>
>If the statement is accompanied by an action, then that's the
>context. E.g. If the lookout suddenly moves out of the light into the
>foliage or puts a hand over your mouth, then he's probably saying {wej}
>"three" -- and they're coming your way! If he's acting nonchalant,
>careless, yawning and making no attempt to get out of sight, then he
>probably saying {wej} "not yet".
>
>Native speakers automatically filter out the inappropriate options when it
>comes to homophones. As foreign speakers, we have to do this manually, as
>it were.
I suppose that I wouldn't have problems distinguishing <wej>
"not yet" and <wej> "three" if it occurred in a spoken context.
But I have had that problem on several occasions while reading
Klingon. It happened on Qov's blog, and I forget the other
instances but it might have been Shakespeare or Qo'noS QonoS where
I had to keep <wej> in mind for several sentences to figure out
which it meant.
--
De'vID
_________________________________________________________________
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen
Technology
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.