tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 02 16:42:01 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: More on Ray Charles

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

ja'pu' juDmoS:
>Speaking of asides, I'm still interested to know your response to my 
>explanation
>re: DaSovchu'be' vs DaSovbe'chu' . I'm trying to state here the premise 
>spelled
>out above... that you don't perfectly know me...like you think you do. So, 
>I
>attached the negating rover not to the verb Sov (to say "You don't know me
>perfectly", but to the suffix -chu', to say that you know me, but not 
>perfectly.
>Perhaps a subtle argument of semantics...perhaps not. Does the placement of 
>the
>negating rover subtly alter the meaning of the word as I imply, or does it 
>not?

I must apologise; I've had the draft of a response sitting for a few days, 
because there are still a couple of questions you asked that I'm not 
entirely sure I've answered completely. But here goes:

jIja'pu':
>Stylistically, I'd suggest inverting {-be'} and {-chu'}, though: 
>{choSovbe'chu'} "you clearly don't >know me" preserves the original sense a 
>little better than {choSovchu'be'} "it's unclear that you >know me".

bIjang:
>Well, I was looking at the rule that the rover follows the concept being 
>negated, and following the sense that, while you do in fact know me, you 
>don't REALLY know me.So I was trying to negate only the "perfectly" 
>concept.

Hm. This is where the meanings for {-chu'} provided in TKD clash a little 
bit. Using the meaning "clearly", it's probably {choSovbe'chu'} "it's clear 
(viz. to me) that you don't know me", but with the meaning "perfectly", 
{choSovchu'be'} "you don't perfectly know me, you imperfectly know me" is 
better. So, it may be that either is OK.

>Like, okay...you know me... but not as well as you think you do...
>(I'd like your comments on this part...can I negate an qualifier to carry 
>this connotation?)

Certainly. While it's not 100% strictly ratified canon AFAIK, it does appear 
that a rover negates the suffix that immediately precedes it: {vIta'be'laH} 
"I am able not to do it", {vIta'laHbe'} "I cannot do it". That's why the 
suffixes {-be'} and {-qu'} are rovers: they can negate or intensify any verb 
suffix as well as the verb.

>And, would the aforementioned premise be more accurately carried by 
>something like >DaSovchu'Ha'? I originally dismissed this because there was 
>no actual change of state.. but I >wonder about it's use in Do'Ha' 
>(unfortunate)...there was not actually a change of state here...it >didn't 
>go from being fortunate to being unfortunate... more along the lines of 
>"misfortune". So, >can you know me "misperfectly"?

We have the canon term {yajHa'} "misunderstand" in TKD, so I don't see any 
reason why {SovHa'} "mis-know" should be any different. It sounds weird in 
English, but the Klingon falls right into place, and I think that it might 
be the best way yet.

That being said, as lay'tel SIvten has ably pointed out, {-Ha'} is not 
really a rover. Klingon grammarians say it is, but it's really a "class 0" 
suffix: it comes before all others without exception. It even precedes 
{-'egh} and {-chuq}, the type 1 suffixes. So {DaSovchu'Ha'} is impossible, 
but {DaSovHa'chu'} "you perfectly mis-know it" is grammatical; I'd probably 
go with that one.

jIja'pu':
>See if you can come up with a good way of recasting "I can hardly speak": I 
>have one in mind, but I don't want to influence your answer. {{:)

bIjang:
>tlhoS jIjanglaHbe' je' (how's that? You never did tell me whether it was 
>good or not...)

It's almost exactly as I would have done it. Except for the final glottal 
stop, that is. <g>

>choSovchu' 'e' DaHar 'e' luyajbejqu'  Hoch (better?)

"Everyone definitely understands that you believe that you know me 
completely". Sounds OK to me.

>I've had situations before wherein I wanted to say "about" (and even 
>"with")in a case like this... >that you are the subject matter of my 
>dreams. How would you have done it?

Well, the suffix {-'e'} is a topicaliser (and can give the meanings of "as 
for", "with regard to"); however, the distinction between the topic of the 
verb and the topic of the sentence is somewhat muddy. It may be possible to 
say {qanaj} "I dream you", but we have no canon to ratify that. You may be 
able to do something with the word {Soj}, as well, which not only means 
"food" but also is a slang term meaning "affair, matter, topic" (introduced 
in HolQeD v12n3p9): {jInaj 'ej Soj SoH} "I dream, and you are the subject". 
That may be the best way.

>qevpoblIj vIchop 'ej qa'uchqu' 'e' vIneH 'e' DaSovbe' (you don't know that 
>I want to really hold you, and "a bite on the cheek for old times' sake"?))

Not bad, but remember that {neH} doesn't use {'e'}. If you just drop the 
first {'e'} from this, it becomes fine.

>SoHvaD juplI' neH jIH. ret ghaH neH jIHtaH. DaSovchu'be'mo' (To you I'm 
>only a friend..that's all >I've ever been, because you don't really know 
>me)

You'll need to change the final verb prefix to {cho-} "you-me" rather than 
{Da-} "you-it/them". Incorporating that and the change to {SovHa'} 
"mis-know": {choSovHa'chu'mo'} "because you clearly mis-know me". {reH} 
"always" may be better than {ret} "(in) the past" as well, since the 
original implies that the state of only being a friend is not likely to 
stop.

>For I never knew the art of making love, (half of skill lies in knowing 
>what you can do..the other half lies in knowing what you cannot. I'm not 
>ready to try this one yet.)

Okay, this one will be a recast job too. "The art of making love" can 
probably be recast pretty well as {parmaq tIghmey} "love's ways, the customs 
of romance", so perhaps {parmaq tIghmey'e' not vISovmo'} "because as for the 
customs of love, I never knew them". (The {-'e'} suffix is just to help fill 
out the sentence and preserve the meter. Without it, it's just {not parmaq 
tIghmey vISovmo'}.)

As you said, the trick is breaking past the English words to get to the 
concepts.

bIja'taH:
>jIyoHHa'mo' 'ej jIjaqHa'mo'  narghpu' 'ebwIj 'e' vIchawpu'  (Because I was 
>not brave, and because I was not bold, I allowed my chance to escape)

Just remember that a verb that uses {'e'} can't take an aspect suffix. You'd 
have to say just {'e' vIchaw'} (with final glottal stop).

>'ebvetlhDaq jIHvaD parmaq Daghajjaj....(an attempt at a "drastic recast")

This is the one I had real trouble with. First off, you can't be physically 
in an opportunity. {-Daq} is only used for physical locations - being in a 
box, on a chair, on Kronos, et cetera, so {'ebvetlhDaq} doesn't make any 
sense in Klingon.

For this one, I'd have used {DuH} "chance, possibility" rather than {'eb} 
"chance, opportunity". I would recast this in English as "that opportunity 
represents the possibility of the love which you have for me": {jIHvaD 
parmaq Daghajbogh DuH 'oS 'ebvetlh}. However, I'd like to hear some other 
opinions on that, since it may sound a little strange to some ears.

Looking forward to hearing the next stanza!

Savan,

QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Back to archive top level