tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 18 10:29:48 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Direct quote of written statement
Dar'Qang:
> > Do we have a specified way for quoting a written statement? The object of
> > {ghItlh} seems to be the item written upon (i.e., {nav}).
ngabwI':
>I'm not so sure I completely agree with that. AFAIK (and feel free to
>correct me) we've never seen {ghItlh} used with an object. Therefore, I
>avoid using an object with {ghItlh} until we see otherwise. I would express
>the idea of {nav vIghItlh} as {navDaq jIghItlh} "I write on the paper"
As used in canon:
ghItlh vIghItlhta'bogh DalaD'a'
Will you read my manuscript? TKD
Okrand on writing:
To "mark (upon)" something is {ghItlh}. This isn't just writing; it's
any kind of marking. (Note that {ghItlh}, "to write", refers to the
physical act of writing. It doesn't mean "to create a composition."
For that, Klingons use {qon} "record." (HQ 2.4)
N.B. "mark (upon)" - implying an object.
Indeed, the verb {ghItlh} is most commonly translated as "write", but
it always refers to the act of writing... that is, of making marks on
some surface--not to the act of composition. Its use in the contexts
of both sculpting and writing suggests that writing began as carving.
(KGT 80)
Typing on paper would surely qualify, but does keyboarding a message count
as "making marks on some surface" -- i.e. the computer/PADD screen?
Here's Okrand's detailed st.k post on writing in full:
From: Marc Okrand <...>
Newsgroups: startrek.klingon
Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998
Subject: Re: maHeghlaw'lI'
Qov (and others) bring up an interesting point about writing in Klingon.
The verb for "write" in the sense of "compose" is /qon/, literally
"record." This is used for songs and also for literary works (poems,
plays, romance novels, and so on). As has been pointed out, it's as if
the song or story is somehow out there and the "writer" comes into contact
with it, extracts it (to use Qov's nice phrase), and records it.
The verb usually translated "write," /ghItlh/, refers to the physical
activity of writing (moving the pencil around, chiseling, etc.)
The question is, if you can /ghItlh/ it, must you also /qon/ it? That is,
is everything that is written down the result of composition (in the sense
described above)?
The answer is "not necessarily." There's another verb, /gher/, which
doesn't have a straightforward equivalent in English, but which has
sometimes been translated (not entirely satisfactorily) as "formulate" or
"compile" or "pull together." The idea seems to be that of bringing
thoughts together into some kind of reasonably coherent form so that they
can be conveyed to someone else.
Thus, one would usually say /naD tetlh gher/ "he/she compiles the
Commendation List" or "he/she writes the Commendation List" (/naD/
"commendation," /tetlh/ "roll, scroll, list," /gher/ "he/she compiles
it").
(Maltz laughed at, but accepted, /Soj tetlh gher/ for "he/she writes the
grocery list" [/Soj/ "food"].)
One would probably /gher/, rather than /qon/, a suggested list of
readings, a gazetteer, a simple menu, or the instructions for assembling a
toy (assuming the latter is not really an exercise in creative writing).
One might also say /QIn gher/ "he/she formulates a message" or, more
colloquially, "he/she writes a message" (/QIn/ "message," /gher/ "he/she
formulates it"). But now it begins to get tricky. Using /gher/ here
implies that the writer of the message was passing along some information
he or she got elsewhere, such as scribbling down a telephone message.
Saying /QIn qon/ "he/she composes a message" or "he/she writes a message"
(literally "he/she records a message") suggests that the writer is
presenting some new information as opposed to merely passing something
along. It may also imply that the written message has some sort of
literary merit, and thus be a compliment.
But not always. /HIDjolev qon/ "he/she composes the menu" (/HIDjolev/
"menu," /qon/ "he/she composes it") suggests that the speaker thinks the
list of available fare is written with a certain literary flair. This is
not likely to be said of menus in Klingon restaurants (whose menus, if
posted at all, tend to be rather pithy), and thus could easily be taken as
an insult.
Similarly, something like /bom gher/ "he/she formulates the song" (/bom/
"song") would be taken as a disparaging comment about the song or its
composer (and is, in fact, sometimes heard when the song in question is of
non-Klingon origin).
This should help somewhat, but it will no doubt raise additional questions
about usage. Maltz seems to be willing to try to tackle them as they come
along.
> > I'm not completely sure about the object of {qon}, but my sense is that
> > {mu'tlhegh vIqon} would be a valid usage, but not a direct quote of the
> > thing written.
>
>vaj maQochbe'. I have that sense, too.
Agreed.
>However, I'm a little more confident about the object of {qon}. It is the
>thing recorded or composed. One can {qon} music and stories, so why not
>{mu'tlheghmey}, if they are committed to writing?
For routine emails, {gher} may be the most appropriate verb. From the
above st.k post we read that
The idea seems to be that of bringing thoughts together into some kind
of reasonably coherent form so that they can be conveyed to someone else.
You know, this actually sounds like a definition of "essay" from a English
composition class.
One might also say /QIn gher/ "he/she formulates a message" or, more
colloquially, "he/she writes a message" (/QIn/ "message," /gher/ "he/she
formulates it"). But now it begins to get tricky.
Indeed. Okrand's feeling seems to be that {qon} smacks of the
literary. For example in this email, since I've quoted and edited bits of
other messages, I definitely {gher}, but when I add my own interpretation,
suggestions and thoughts have I started to {qon}?
In any event, {gher} & {qon} usually take an object, at least in the few
brief examples we've seen.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}