tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 23 08:07:56 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: *'Iytlher paq

Steven Boozer ([email protected])



naHQun:
> >> ghotpu' HochHom matlhghach je' *'aqIS puqloDpu'.
> >>
> >>11 Now the people of Akish were desirous for gain, even as Akish was
> >> desirous for power; wherefore, the sons of Akish did offer them money,
> >> by which means they drew away the more part of the people after them.

Voragh:
> > "loyalty"?
> >
> > Insert a suffix after the verb.  {-taH} will do:  *{matlhtaHghach}.  Fierce
> > loyalty or devotion bordering on fanaticism might be *{matlhqu'ghach}.

naHQun:
>Being that it's not "true loyalty" (it's being bought), I thought I'd
>make it "highly marked".

Careful, the marking may not mean what you want it to.  Here, it would 
sound something like "loyalness", "loyalbility", or "loyalation" instead of 
the correct form "loyalty".  It will cause the "native" reader to pause on 
that word to try to figure out this peculiar form.  Also, I don't see any 
particular "marking" in the original text; why are you doing it in 
Klingon?  Translator's should translate the text as it is, so far as 
possible, without inserting their personal interpretation in the 
process.  If you want to explain that the text implies "that it's not 'true 
loyalty' (it's being bought)", then do so in a footnote.

That being said, if you prefer to put it in terms of honor rather than 
loyalty, consider the noun {DavHam} "false honor":

   Maltz mentioned one noun associated with these verbs, {DavHam}, which
   he defined simply as "false honor", but which really covers the same
   semantic ground as both {HoQ} and {Qaq} (but not really {mIl}). {DavHam}
   is different from {quvHa'ghach} "dishonor" (noun) in that the latter
   does not imply seeming to be honorable or the appearance of honorability,
   but rather the lack of or loss of honor.                [HQ 12.3:9]

{HoQ} "be honored falsely, be falsely honorable", {Qaq} "behave falsely 
honorably, behave in a falsely honorable manner", {mIl} "be formerly 
honored" - all verbs from that same article in HolQeD.


naHQun:
>I don't think anyone can use {-ghach} without suggestions coming up,
>and a prefix is a simple thing to take care of. I didn't realize I was
>getting this good. We'll have to see if any other comments come in.

For those interested, here's the relevant part from the article "Interview: 
Okrand on {­ghach}" in HolQeD 3.3:10:


Z: So, can we use the suffix {­ghach} on a naked stem?

MO: The general answer to that is "no." Now having said that, can you do 
it? Can you say {belghach} or {nobghach} or anything like that? Yeah you 
can, but it has a feeling in Klingon kind of like the English word 
*pleasureness or something or something like *collapsation ­ it follows the 
rules, it's a ­tion, an activity and all, but it doesn't happen to work. 
However, ­ if you said it would you be understood? Yes, but it's weird. 
Klingon is a little more forgiving than English, people wouldn't jump up 
and down and say that's horrible and ungrammatical, but they would say 
that's a unique formation. Perhaps appropriate for the occasion, but not 
necessarily a word for all times.

Z: So, if we use {-ghach} on a bare stem...

MO: It's a highly marked form. It's a word you are forming for a specific 
occasion and a specific effect. If you were a poet or philosopher or hard 
scientist and had to describe something very specifically these kinds of 
words might be appropriate but it carries the feeling of very technical 
arcane vocabulary, not normal everyday stuff. So can you say it? Yes, but 
you are saying more, rather than less or neutral.

Z: And you are drawing a great deal of attention to it in the process.

MO: Right, I suppose over time some of these things could be lexicalized, 
but my hunch would be if they are lexicalized they would drop stuff. And 
there may even be some kind of morphological change ­what used to be the 
last consonant of the stem will change to the {ch} of {-ghach} or something 
like that. There are limited examples of that type of stuff happening in 
the dictionary, though not with the {­ghach}.

Z: Okay, if you can add {-ghach} to a bare stem, what happens if you add it 
to one of those verbs that already has a noun counterpart? Like {nob}?

MO: You won't necessarily end up with a noun that means the same thing. 
Remember, there is no single semantic or case relationship between a noun 
and a verb, there are different ones, probably half a dozen different 
relationships going on, and the {-ghach} one will only be one of those, and 
it will be a different kind, not the same thing at all. So if you add 
{­ghach} to {nob} you end up with *givation. If what you mean to express is 
an ongoing giving, {nobtaHghach}, stick in the {­taH}.

Z: Well, if {nobtaHghach} means something like ongoing giving, would 
{nobghach} mean a one-time donation?

MO: Yes, but it's a funny word for that. It could also be {nobpu'ghach}, a 
*given. Not a past event necessarily, just finished. Now if you use 
{-ghach}, and Klingons do this, they play with their language like everyone 
does, you can get some interesting semantic distinctions you can't get 
otherwise. For example, you have two nouns that mean honor-­like you would 
expect because it's such a big deal. There's {batlh} and there's {quv} and 
both are nouns meaning "honor". And there's a verb meaning "honor" 
{quvmoH}, that's a regular ordinary construction. So you can have 
{quvmoHghach} which is a noun that would mean the process of honoring. 
{quvghach}, the naked stem one, that would mean *honoredness. It has the 
same odd feeling to it, but the same understandability, but not quite as 
bizarre in Klingon as in English. It's a highlighter.


naHQun:
>Wait, that's it? I left off {lu-} and suggestions with {-ghach}?

Actually, those are the only bits I had time to look at since you mentioned 
{-ghach} particularly.



--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level