![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}
![[Hol po'wI']](/pics/level3_big.png "[Hol po'wI']"){kind=small}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dar'Qang" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Direct quote of written statement
> At 05:44 AM 8/19/2004, ngabwI' wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 1:29 PM
> >Subject: Re: Direct quote of written statement
> >
> Hmm... I liked your {qon} analysis and on first reading I took Voragh's
> canon citations as supporting {qon}.
And I read them as *not* supporting my use of {qon}.
> But based on your comment above, I
> re-read more carefully and then decided that your new recommendation was
> correct. Then I thought it through more, and now I'm not sure at
all. }}:-)
DIng yabwIj }}: )
> Even though it's a tangent to my original inquiry, I've decided to try and
> understand when to use {qon} and when to use {gher}. I hadn't previously
> thought of {gher} in association with "writing", so this is new info for
me.
For me, as well. You and I have exactly the same amount of info. If I had
given any thought at all, I would have presumed {gher} to be used for a
grocery list (which it can be, acc to Voragh's post), or maybe even pulling
together all the articles for a {HolQeD}, but definitely not for writing a
message.
> From Voragh:
>
> 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.
>
> It seems that {qon} has a fundamental meaning of "record", since it's
cited
> as the literal meaning, and the point at the end of the paragraph isn't
> very interesting if {qon} doesn't mean "record" as in writing down a
record
> of what you encounter.
Follow you so far.
> So a question would be, does {qon} describe what (for example) an AP
> newswriter does when he/she creates a report for the wire services? That
> wouldn't necessarily have literary merit.
As I understand it, this would (usually) be {gher}.
> The key appears to be in:
>
> 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.
>
> Scribbling down a telephone message is a little like writing a news wire
> report, but because it is a /new/ description, I think that one would be
> justified in using {qon}.
OK, you lost me. How does taking a phone message incorporate something new?
Though I could certainly use English "record" for this, in light of what
we've been told, I would normally not use Klingon {qon} for this anymore.
> Also, this paragraphs ends:
>
> ...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.
> [emphasis added]
>
> The 'also' is the key, I think. I take it to mean that {qon} doesn't
> automatically imply literary merit. I suspect that it's the use of {qon}
> for plays and stories that results in the literary connotation, but I
think
> it is a literary connotation for a word that still has non literary
> usages. Just my opinion, of course.
vaj tlhoS wa' DoS wIqIp. Esp. about the use of {qon} in stories and songs
resulting in it's literary connotation.
I'm not denying that {qon} could be used in other circumstances. Perhaps the
difference lies in how strong the connotation of "literariness" is with
{qon}. To my mind, it seems that the connotation is "mid-level", something
that's certainly there all the time, but can easily be overridden by
context, as opposed to a "low-level" connotation, one where the connotation
comes through only in certain contexts, or a "high-level", where the
connotation borders on denotation. (I hope this makes some sense. It's
early, and forming words without caffeine is difficult.)
> Based on the remainder of the newsgroup message from Okrand that Voragh
> posted, it appears that the literary connotation is heightened when you
use
> {gher} where you would normally expect {qon}, and vice versa.
Agreed.
> But one you consider an MO comment about {gher}:
>
> 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.
>
> It's clear that there is a big, gray, squishy boundary between the two.
Again, agreed. I like the "squishy boundary" idea. It makes the language
seem a little more organic, a little more "real".
Not too long ago, I was given two very valuable pieces of advice in this
language:
Voragh told me that much of the language is based on "how it feels". If you
go around trying to analyze it to death, you're going to drive yourself
nuts.
And while I was wrestling with the "proper" object of {ja'}(the thing told
or the person told), SuStel advised me that until we learn otherwise, use
{ja'} however you are comfortable using it.
What arose from these two tidbits was (for me) a new way of looking at
Klingon.
Go with your gut. {DujlIj yIvoq!} Many of our questions haven't been
answered yet. If we haven't been told the "one true way", no one can say
your usage is wrong. An example:
At the {qep'a'}, Krankor and Angieska (if I misspelled your name, I'm sorry,
please correct me) did a Klingon version of "If You're Happy and You Know
It" ({bIQuchchugh 'ej DaSovchugh}) It was great, but there was one line in
the song that went:
{tlhIngan bel SoH 'e' Daghovchugh} "If you recognize that you are a pleased
Klingon"
Inside I winced. I feel that this use of "recognize" in English is
idiomatic, and so wouldn't encode to Klingon correctly. But I felt the same
way about the use of {Qub} as "I believe", as in {tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh 'e'
vIQub} "I think you speak Klingon", until I found out that this use is
canon.
So I'm not going to tell Krankor and Angieska that their usage of {ghov} is
incorrect, because I cannot say that it is. But until we're told otherwise,
*I* *personally* will not use it this way.
Besides, who knows? MO's a native Engish speaker, and many features of this
language arose from that fact. He may one day tell us this usage is
"correct", and at that time, I will alter my usage accordingly.
My two cents worth.
--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org
HovpoH 701943.5