tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 17 12:53:03 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Return With Honour

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

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Alan Anderson wrote:
> ja' ...Paul:
>> How would you emphasize the idea that it's preferable only in the
>> mind of
>> the speaker?
>
> Why would one want to emphasize something which isn't true?  Many
> people besides the speaker undoubtedly share the preference.
>
> If you wish to emphasize that the speaker does prefer it, you might
> add {...'e' vIHar} or something.  But don't you think that merely
> uttering the statement is enough to imply believing it?

I like adding /'e' vIHar/.  I can accept that there's not a significant 
difference between the idea of "I'd prefer A to B." and "I believe A is 
more preferable than B."

To your question about whether or not a statement is enough to imply 
belief...  I guess it depends on context.  By itself, the rigid /A Q law' 
B Q puS/ construct, to me, feels 'authoritative', in that it is describing 
a relationship that is not given to personal perspective.  Most, if not 
all, of the examples we have are fairly factual.  A is bigger than B.  A 
is "more good" than B (for topics that few would argue with).

I guess what it really comes down to is how one conveys that something 
said is to be taken as true only to the extent of the speaker, and not to 
be taken as the speaker being incorrect.  If the preference in question 
was reversed:

bIcheghDI' lom quv qaq law' loD quvHa' qaq puS

bIcheghDI' loD quvHa' qaq law' lom quv qaq puS

If a Klingon were to speak the latter, they would definitely not be 
speaking for the masses; Klingon society would obviously never prefer 
dishonor to death.  But were someone to say that (perhaps a human mother 
speaking to her half-Klingon son), would they be taken as indicating a 
personal perspective, or would they be seen as being "wrong"?  In such a 
case, I would argue that it would be more accurate to have some indication 
that such a comparison is, in fact, only from the perspective of the 
speaker, and that the speaker is not attempting to convey a measurable 
fact, or something that the majority of the society would agree with.

bIcheghDI' loD quvHa' qaq law' lom quv qaq puS 'e' vIHar jIH.
*I* believe that when you return, it is preferable you be a dishonoured 
man than an honored corpse.

Perhaps a contextual example; imagine a "scene" where a son is preparing 
to leave for war.  The mother is distraught.

SoS:  chocheghlaHmeH yIyIntaH.
Mother:  Live, so you can return to me.

pusloD:  Hegh qaq law' quvHa'ghach qaq puS.
Son:  Death is better than dishonor.

SoS:  bIcheghDI' loD quvHa' qaq law' lom quv qaq puS 'e' vIHar jIH.
Mother:  *I* believe is better you return a dishonored man than an honored
          corpse.

Without the caveat provided by /'e' vIHar jIH/, I think the mother's 
intent in her statement is unclear; is conveying her own belief, or is she 
saying the son is wrong in his statement (which repeats something that is 
generally socially accepted as truth)?

I guess it actually depends on social context as well.  In a society where 
everyone may be expected to have their own opinions, the 'disclaimer' is 
unnecessary; a persona who makes a statement contrary to popular belief 
can be presumed to be simply advancing a personal belief in conflict with 
social norm.  However, in a society where people are expected to conform 
(which, I think, one could argue we have plenty of evidence that the 
Klingon society would be one), it seems like one needs to present claims 
as being personal belief -- in preference to being construed as "wrong".

Either way, I think /'e' vIHar/ fixes the problem nicely.  :)

...Paul

          ** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
   ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
   "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
                         -- Albert Einstein

Back to archive top level