tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 16 04:16:26 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:14:50 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Doq, ja':
>"Now, for the benefit of next year, I have accomplished gathering my
>goals." The year does not have to be the recipient in order to be the
>benefactor.
No, but it's hard to see how the year itself is deriving any "benefit" from
gathering one's goals. The worker is the one who benefits. For one's year of
work, maybe (in which case I would expect something like {wa' nem Qu'wIjvaD}
"for the benefit of my next-year mission", maybe?), but not for the year
itself. (And actually, "benefactor" is the one who *does* the good, not the
one who receives it, but that's beside the point.)
>You are overly restrictive in your interpretation of the use of {-vaD}.
cha' DoS DIqIpchu'. For my part, I am in agreement with DloraH and Voragh on
their interpretation of {-vaD}.
>You CAN use a noun-noun construction, though it is more ambiguous, but you
>are not limited to using a noun-noun construction.
>It is not your only allowed option,
Obviously. You can use the "year" phrase as a time stamp in a relative
clause: {wa' nem ngoQmey'e' vIta'nISpu'bogh} "the goals which I will need to
have accomplished in one year's time". (Personally, I'd steer away from {wa'
nem} because of the ambiguity, and go for {DIS veb qaSDI'} "by next year".)
>One of the differences between a language and a code is that while using a
>language, you have different options for expressing the same idea. A code
>lacks that versatility. Klingon is a language, not a code for English
>messages.
'e' Sovba' DloraH. qaStaHvIS wa'maH DIS tlhIngan Hol HaDtaHqu'.
DaquvHa'moHpu' 'e' vIHar.
>There are several different ways of expressing this particular idea. Off
>the top of my head:
>wa'nem vIqeltaHvIS, DaH ngoQwIj vIgherta'.
That's an interesting way of doing it.
>DaH wa'nem ngoQ vIta'bogh vIgherta'. (wa'nem is the time stamp for the
>relative clause; DaH is the time stamp for the main clause)
Aside from the point about {wa'nem} that Voragh already made, this could
also get confusing. And there's nothing to stop the listener from
interpreting the phrase {wa' nem ngoQ vIta'bogh} as simply being an ordinary
noun-noun phrase object ({wa' nem ngoQ} "one-year-from-now's goal") plus a
verb, rather than a time stamp plus object plus verb.
>wa'nem'e' DaH ngoQwIj vIgherta'. (wa'nem is the topic of the sentence
>without an obvious grammatical role in the sentence as required by
>English)
Of course it has an obvious grammatical role. It's the topic, as per TKD.
That counts as a grammatical role, doesn't it. (And by the bye, colloquial
English does use isolated noun phrases as topics too: "My uncle John, he
drank me under the table." "Tuesday I went to the shops.")
>DaH wa'nemghoQ vIgherta'. (I don't like this compound noun, but if someone
>else came up with it I could only accuse them of tastelessness and not of
>violating Klingon grammar)
Although we can't say for certain that it's bad grammar per se, it's
certainly bad style. The noun-noun construction is the normal device for
doing things of this sort. This sentence is functionally equivalent to {DaH
wa' nem ghoQ vIgherta'}, so why not just write it that way?
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement: Meet Sexy Singles Today @ Lavalife - Click here
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D23769&_t=754951090&_r=endtext_lavalife_dec_meet&_m=EXT