tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 26 16:30:20 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus

...Paul ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

On Wed, 26 May 2004 [email protected] wrote:
> Sure. {yIQong} means just that, "Sleep!". {yIQongchoH} means "Change your state
> from what you are doing and begin sleeping!". If I'm standing next to someone
> who is falling asleep I would use {yIQong! yIQong}, I'm not going to use
> {yIQongchoH} because their state is already of one who is attempting to fall
> asleep.

> No, they don't connote an intent for a verb to "start". Yes, I would use {-choH}
> on a verb with an imperative prefix. I would use it when I want them to start
> doing the verb (I'm imagineing a dill sarg telling his troops to march when
> then are already marching... {-choH} just doesn't fit in there).

What I think is being lost here is that you (and QeS lagh) are analyzing
the Klingon very precisely, but you are NOT analyzing the *English*
precisely.

If you are a drill sergeant yelling at his troops, who are already
obviously running, to "Run!", what are you really trying to convey?
Obviously, the troops are already running, what you're really commanding
them to do is to *continue to run*.  Wait!  Isn't there a Klingon verb
suffix explicitly for that concept?  Yes, yes there is.  In this case, the
English is "clipped".  It would be more precise for the drill sergeant to
say /yIqettaH/ "Continue running!" in this case.

If the unit was at rest, and the sergeant yelled, "Run!" he's using a
clipped form of English as well, but in this case, context dictates that
he means "begin running".  Again, Klingon comes through with a specific
suffix to address this condition, /-choH/.  Formally, this would be
/yIqetchoH/.

Looking at these kinds of translations from a straight English translation
perspective, we lose the underlying meaning of the English, and our
Klingon starts down a path of being obviously derived from the English.
To some degree, this is inevitable, but I think in the cases where we can
identify this Anglification of the language, it's useful to point it out.

That said, I think my posit that imperative prefixes have a connotation of
/-choH/ may be disproved.  But what perhaps I have uncovered is a tendency
among us to *assume* that there is a /-choH/ connotation to imperative
prefixes.  It only isn't obvious until we try to use an imperative prefix
with a "verb of quality", where the English connotations start to falter.

...Paul

 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
        "I used to be confused, but now I'm just not sure."

Back to archive top level