tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 17 12:06:15 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:04:48 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=SqWcg5TbUbv+1OYTpR+fmQz5nn/nFHpgRD6nFjMZ/LdM3nal+Re0v3F89NgqJClM; h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
On Feb 16, 2007, at 7:14 AM, QeS 'utlh wrote:
> 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...
>
> ... (And actually, "benefactor" is the one who *does* the good, not
> the
> one who receives it, but that's beside the point.)
HIvqa' veqlargh!
>> 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}.
I accept the popular opinion that I am wrong here.
>> 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".)
That would be {qaSDI' DIS veb}. Subject follows verb. I don't see
this as less ambiguous. Just more verbose.
>> 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.
jItlhIj. DloraH vIquvHa'be'ta'. jIquvHa''egh neH.
>> 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.
"Now I have intentionally completed gathering next year's goals,
which I have accomplished," vs. "Now, I have gathered the goals which
I will have accomplished next year." I think most people could figure
out which is the more probable intent.
>> 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.")
The first is just a redundant reference (unlike the Klingon) and the
second is a time stamp. I genuinely think that English generally
lacks the equivalent of Topic in the sense that Klingon uses it. It's
not the subject or object or time stamp. It's just the scope and
focus of whatever you are saying without needing the topic to be
grammatically linked to the sentence.
There may be examples to prove me wrong on that, but I don't think
you've come up with one yet.
>> 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?
An earlier description of this sentence spoke of linking {wa'nem} and
{ghoQ} by speaking continuously between them and pausing somewhere
else. That's really the same thing as making it a compound noun,
since written Klingon is really just a phonetic representation of
spoken Klingon as we've come to form our own standards. If you need
to verbally link the two nouns in this way, you might as well write
it as a compound noun. If you don't like it as a compound noun, you
probably should not consider verbal rhythm as a means of
disambiguating the sentence.
> 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
Doq