tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 01 05:29:35 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: ngIp (verb)
>>>> qaq mIw pIm.
>>>>
>>>> mu'mey nov lo'laH tlhIngan Hol?
>>> "A different method (process) is preferable. Can Klingon use new
>>> words?"
>>>
>>> If I understand you correctly,...
>>
>> Dayajbe'. yImughqa'.
ja' Sangqar:
> Yes, I did actually realize that his second line was a suggestion and
> not a question...
'ach Damughqa'be'ta' jay'. Doq mu'tlhegh cha'DIch Dayajbe'. yImughqa'.
I wanted you to try again. You didn't. Do it. Translate what he
said, not what you wanted him to say.
> ...Obviously Klingon can use new words;...
The "new words" idea is your own. It does not appear in Doq's
suggestion.
> I'm not sure why you think he was "pointing out" that they were odd
> - that point was never in contention, since I quoted MO saying
> (essentially) that they were odd but occasionally appropriate.
*shrug* It looked like you were taking offense at translations like
"borrowation".
> A similar point applies to the "{pup} = precise" issue and the "Can
> Klingon use new words?" question. And maybe others that I am too tired
> to catch at the moment.
The point is that you translated {pup} as "precise" in the context of
explaining how Doq had insufficient knowledge of the vocabulary,
while I can find that definition nowhere in the references. The
point is that you mistranslated and thus misunderstood Doq's
question, and then you failed to reread and retranslate it when
prompted to. You also ignored the prompt to retranslate another
phrase containing a verb prefix that you had misunderstood the first
time.
> I generally accept constructive criticism, but I find it more helpful
> when it's correcting errors that I am actually guilty of.
See my previous two sentences.
Here's some constructive criticism: It looks like you think you know
more vocabulary than you actually do. I suggest that you make more
use of the dictionary to double-check that you have correctly
translated what you are reading. For example, you objected to {qar}
instead of {pup} because you didn't think "correct" was better than
"exact". If you had looked it up, you would have found that you were
thinking of {lugh}, and that {qar} means "be accurate".
A significant amount of your commentary appears to be based on simple
misunderstanding of what you're responding to.
> Also, please notice that I don't immediately assume that phrases like
> "How can you fail to..." (and other similar things scattered
> throughout
> your post) are intended to insult my intelligence. I see no reason to
> automatically assume someone is being a jerk.
Thank you for not assuming such. In the referenced phrase, I was
honestly surprised by your confusion about what "we" meant in the
context of a two-person discussion. It's true that "we" can mean "I
and others" in addition to "you and I", but when no "other" has been
mentioned, why would it even occur to you to bring it into the meaning?
> ...I have no desire to be a
> Klingon or act like one. I just find the language fascinating. This
> is,
> after all, the {tlhIngan Hol} mailing list, not the {tlhIngan nugh}
> mailing list.
maj. rap mo'wIj.
-- ghunchu'wI'