tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 09 23:52:19 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vIghro'vetlh
- From: McArdle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: vIghro'vetlh
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 23:50:11 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=zpVdeVA35NyOXarLBlxnTHqOOK1vX7e1hkBBMLw48bvFFg9IN3uukFTstRqUG6BSPaD+o0rO+JfL/YSHJWRhrPfJS5oB3DAP4iEtpPQmTQBlltzoqnUBDZQ7a7EWbIzyf/PNQpzzTysEBHRVOsgU7T+m+Qk0EhsI64AKjrpvoS0=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
--- Doq <[email protected]> wrote:
> Reading TKD, I see that Okrand says Klingon
> sentences tend to be
> small. He gives examples of joining two separate
> sentences with
> {'e'}. He doesn't give any examples of multiple
> combinations of {'e'}
> conjoined sentences. We know that the first {'e'}
> refers to the
> sentence before it. Does the second {'e'} refer to
> the middle
> sentence, or to the two sentences before it? Does
> the third {'e'}
> refer to the third sentence, or to the three
> sentences before it? We
> don't know. We don't even know if this is
> grammatically legal.
>
> You have three {'e'} conjunctions, one of which is
> using {'e'} as the
> direct object of a dependent clause. This seems
> extreme. The point
> here is, if you don't need to be extreme, well, you
> don't need to be
> extreme. This sentence doesn't need to be extreme.
>
> ghunchu'wI''s suggestion is much easier to
> understand; much more
> gracefully expressed.
>
> Even in human languages, unnecessary complexity is
> rarely a good thing.
>
True. The question is how you decide when you've
reached that point. I suppose this can vary from
language to language (and from speaker to speaker),
but I don't think the complexity of my Klingon
sentence would seem excessive in any of the human
languages I've studied.
This was my attempt to render Data's comment to Spot
in "A Fistful of Datas",
"I find it extremely difficult to predict what you
will find acceptable."
Granted, my phrasing was more involved than this, due
to gaps in our knowledge of Klingon and also, I'm
sure, to my beginner's ineptitude with the language.
But even with the added complexity, my sentence was
equivalent to
"When I try to predict whether you'll be willing
to accept something or not, I find it's extremely
difficult."
and I can't imagine that any native speaker of English
would find that sentence excessively complex.
(Although I wouldn't be surprised by objections on the
ground that it's stylistically odd and poorly
phrased.)
I found ghunchu'wI''s suggestion a little too choppy
for my taste (which is, perhaps, not sufficiently
Klingonized). Would the following compromise be
acceptable?
{nuq Dalajqang? jIloymeH Qatlhqu' 'e' vItu'.}
(or would it be {vIloymeH}, with the previous sentence
as implied object?)
qatlho'
-- mI'qey
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com