tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 01 06:36:46 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: ngIp (verb)
naDev tlhIngan Hol wIlo'nIS qoj tlhIngan Hol wIbop. DIvI' Hol
wIlo'taHvIS qechmey DIHechpu'bogh DIjatlhchugh, QIn tetlhvam Qu'
wItoy'Ha'. pIj nutlhu'moH ghu' 'e' vISov, 'ach thu'qu'ghach wI'omnIS.
Qu'maj 'oH.
If you want to discuss emotional issues that become independent of
either using or discussing the language, (like "I meant to say THIS,
but you apparently thought I said THAT") it would be appropriate for
you to go offline from the list and write me at [email protected],
since such messages are not of interest to the population at large
here, and discussing it in public does not improve the quality of the
exchange between the only two interested parties. Here, we either
discuss the Klingon language or we use it. We do not abuse the list by
making them read things that neither use nor discuss the language.
If you find yourself using the word "I" a lot in an English post,
that's a hint that you are off topic. The Klingon language is not
first person. The more the topic is first person or second person, the
more you are off topic.
If anyone feels that I am similarly abusing the rules of this list,
please wake me up to this. ghaytan jIDIv je, 'ach SunwIj vIDublaH. reH
SunwIj vIDub vIneH.
On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Sangqar wrote:
> While I have been trying to use mostly Klingon, I will switch to
> English
> for a bit to avoid confusion.
>
>> QaghDI' nuv latlh lughmoHtaHvIS nuvvam, qay'choH.
>
>> 'ach chotIchnISbe' je. chaq yap SovwIj. chaq yapbe'. bIQaghmo' SovwIj
>> DanoHlaHbe'law'.
>
> I wasn't, in general, trying to correct you or insult you. You had
> trouble understanding my message; part of that was due to my
> grammatical
> errors. But you had trouble understanding even my well-formed
> sentences,
> and judging by your retranslations, I assumed that the reason for that
> was that you were unaware of the other meanings and other usages of
> the
> words in question. Is that assumption what insulted you?
ghobe'. QIn vIlabta'. chojang. <<vIlughmoHlu' vIneH>> jIjatlhbe', 'ach
chojang 'ej mulughmoH 'e' DanID. mulughmoHtaHvIS bIQagh. munuQ QInlIj,
'ach wej chotIch. bIQaghmo', qayajlaHchu'be', vaj DIvI' Hol
vIlo'taHvIS, QInlIj vIloy. chojangqa'. <<yapbe' SovlIj>> DajatlhDI'
chotIchchoH. QaghlIj vIqelDI', SovwIj DanoHlaHbe'law', 'ach SovwIj
DanoHba'taH.
voDleH cho'moH 'Iv?
jIjatlhtaHvIS jIQaghlaH. qay'be'. bIjatlhtaHvIS bIQaghlaH. qay'be'.
pIj Qagh Hoch.
'ach bIQaghtaHvIS cholughmoH DaneHchugh, bIqay'choH.
> Perhaps the way I phrased it in Klingon was what insulted you. If that
> is the case, I welcome suggestions for how to rephrase it.
mulughmoH 'e' yImev. cholughmoHDI', 'elI'jaH Doch Damoj.
>
>>>>> tlhoy mu'mey'e' bIpup. 'ach bIpupqu'chugh:
>>>> "As for words, you kick too much. But if you kick a lot:" ????
>>> yapbe' SovlIj: pup = "be exact" (pup = "kick", pup = "be perfect"
>>> je)
>>
>> "As for words, you are too perfect/exact/high resolution."??? "But if
>> you are very perfect/exact/high resolution:" ???
>>
>> DIvI' Hol mu' "picky" DaneHlaw'. Qu'vam toy'be' mu' <<pup>> . Qatlh
>> mu'tlhegh DaneHbogh. qay' vIjatlhlaH? jIQubnIS...
>
> Actually, I was going for <precise>. "You're being too precise." (in
> reference to your objection to "borrow"). "But if you're going to be
> so
> (lit. extremely) precise:" (And then I go on to say why "steal" is
> also
> inappropriate from a precise perspective.)
>
>> jIpupbe' 'e' vISov, vaj qayajHa'pu'.
>
> I misunderstood you because you knew you were imprecise?
I know that I am imperfect, so I assumed that was not the meaning
("You are too perfect") you were going for.
Qu'lIj toy'Ha' mu' <<pup>>. bIwIvHa'pu'.
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I don't think I
> misunderstood
> you; that part of your message you wrote in English. You said that
> "borrow" was the wrong word, that it should be "steal" or "plunder"; I
> then responded in the same vein. If "borrow" is the wrong word because
> one doesn't give it back, then "steal" is the wrong word because one
> doesn't take it away.
>
> Honestly, it seemed to me you were making some kind of a joke, and I
> just extended the precision that the joke relied upon to explain why
> the
> joke's conclusion was wrong.
tlhoy bItaHtaH.
>
>> mu'tlheghlIj qa'meH vIchenmoH 'e' vInID:
>>
>> <<mu'mey'e' Sun 'Iq DapoQpu'. yIleS. mu' rap lo'laH Hol pIm. qay'be'.
>> SaHbe'lu'.>>
>
> "Where this word is concerned, too much discipline you have required.
> Relax. A different language can use the same word. No problem. No one
> cares."
You've apparently misinterpreted the suffix {-mey} to mean "this"
instead of "plural". It's normal to use English word order when
translating Klingon, too, so that would be "Concerning words, you have
required too much discipline."
>> jIQapta''a'?
>
> Not quite. You have completely missed the idea that "stealing" is just
> as wrong as "borrowing" when being precise about definitions.
jISaHbe'choH.
> I need to speak English to be clear about this. {latlh} is a noun. It
>>
>> is not an adjective. In English, "another" is an adjective or a noun.
>> In Klingon, {latlh} is never an adjective. It is always right to
>> translate {latlh} as a noun. It may sound strange at times to do so,
>> but the meaning of it stated as a noun is always correct because,
>> well, that's what it is.
>
> Again, you're being too precise. It is not always right to translate
> {latlh} as a noun, because it is not always right to translate word
> for
> word. Stating the meaning as a noun is not always correct, because,
> well, that translation doesn't always make sense. Okrandian examples:
>
> latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIqang!
> Pour the cold bloodwine into another glass.
>
> HeghDI' tlhIngan SuvwI' ... Heghtay lulop latlh tlhInganpu'
> When a Klingon warrior dies ... other Klingons may perform ... the
> Klingon death ritual
>
> While one could make a case that the first example could also be
> translated "another's glass", I fail to see how "another's Klingons"
> makes any sense at all in the second example.
>
> One might make the argument that this example is apposition, not a
> noun-noun construction, but the sense of the Klingon seems to indicate
> that "other Klingons" and not "others, (who happen to be) Klingons" is
> the right translation.
>
> The noun-noun construction is not always best translated with a
> possessive. {latlh}, while a noun in Klingon, is not always best
> translated as a noun. You seemed to be unaware that {latlh} in a
> noun-noun construction can mean "(an)other" in addition to
> "(an)other's"
> You seem to be resisting the idea even after I explained what I meant.
It's one thing to suggest a "better" translation. It is quite another
to "correct" a translation that is already quite correct. That's the
line you have crossed. I seriously doubt that Okrand would have
"corrected" my translation.
>> In English, we say "Klingon language". In Klingon, a back-translation
>> of {tlhIngan Hol} is "A Klingon's language". While it may be okay to
>> loosely translate it as "Klingon language" in order to smooth it out
>> for English speakers, {tlhIngan} is never an adjective in Klingon as
>> it is in English. {latlh} and {tlhIngan} are very similar in this
>> regard.
>>
>> You can suggest that {latlh Hol} be "loosely translated" as "another
>> language", but it is useful for beginners (or experienced speakers
>> who
>> have forgotten this) to know that it NEVER literally means "another
>> language" because {latlh} is NEVER an adjective.
>
> Again, I refer you to the Okrandian example above and challenge you to
> explain how "another's Klingons" makes any sense at all.
Good point. Ugly canon, with no explanation from Okrand as to how that
works. If he were to have that pointed out to him, he'd probably have
an awkward moment of thought before answering. Simply put, nothing in
the grammar section of the TKD explains that word used that way. It's
obviously canon, but now, we're left in the awkward situation of usage
that has no grammatical explanation.
I hate it when that happens.
> Simple
> possession doesn't cover the range of meanings in the noun-noun
> construction. {tlhIngan Hol} does not mean "a Klingon's language". It
> means "language that somehow pertains to Klingon(s)". In this case,
> the
> pertinence is that it is the language of the Klingon race/culture/
> Empire.
I don't remember where, but I do remember Okrand clearly stating that
{tlhIngan Hol} actually does mean "a Klingon's language". Surely,
someone better at canon than I am can find this...
>
> Here is a quote from a former BG:
>
> ---start quote---
>
> Not necessarily. IIRC the noun-noun construction is not only limited
> to
> possessive constructions, but may be used for all types of genitives,
> including what would be translated as an apposition in English: "man
> spouse"; "woman doctor"; "food fight". We have the parallel canon term
> {peQ chem} "magnetic field" (i.e. of all the different fields there
> are,
> it's the one pertaining to magnetism). The lack of adjectives in
> Klingon
> for "male" and "magnetic" means that this is the simplest way to do
> this
> sort of construction. {loD nal} *could* mean "man's spouse", but it
> doesn't necessarily have to.
I don't find the word {nal} in my word list. Likely, it is not a word,
and it doesn't work to peel away a portion of a pollysyllabic noun and
treat it like an independent noun for any kind of useful discussion.
BG or not, that could have been handled better, and likely is not a
shining moment of insight to hang onto to improve your understanding
of the language. It is true that noun-noun extends farther than
putting an apostrophe "s" after the first noun. Sometimes it
translates a little better if you reverse the order of the nouns and
insert the word "of" between them when you translate them. "Fight of
food" makes more sense than "food's fight", for instance.
>
> ---end quote---
>
> Note that this is not canon, just discussion from this list. But I
> speak
> Finnish, a language that has a genitive case, and I find this idea
> convincing because the use of Klingon noun-noun construction parallels
> the use of the genitive in Finnish.
In earlier years, Holtej had a lot to say about genitive in Klingon
that was very insightful.
> (Mind you, it's not a 100% match, and the particular example we're
> talking about is moot, because in Finnish the word for "other" is an
> adjective.)
>
>> Think about the difference between {nov Hol} and {Hol nov}. One is
>> the
>> language of a foreigner. The other is a foreign language. The
>> difference in the word order is something that neither {tlhIngan} nor
>> {latlh} can accomplish because they are not verbs, and so they cannot
>> be used as adjectives.
>>
>> So, if I translate {latlh Hol} as "another's language", I'm right.
>> You
>> can suggest a loose translation of it as "another language", but you
>> won't be right unless you explain that it is an intentionally
>> inaccurate, loose translation. Otherwise, people start thinking of
>> {latlh} as if it were an adjective that precedes the noun it
>> modifies,
>> and Klingon has no such grammatical construction, and no such part of
>> speech.
>
> Again, you are being too precise. If you want to stick with the
> Okrandian definition: "The translation of two nouns combined in this
> way, say N1-N2 (that is, noun #1 followed by noun #2), would be N2 of
> the N1". Thus, {tlhIngan Hol} would be "language of the Klingon(s)".
> However, that definition doesn't cover everything that the noun-noun
> construction has been used for. In particular, even this definition
> makes no sense in example #2 above: "When a Klingon warrior dies
> Klingons of the other may perform the Klingon death ritual."
It's ugly canon, no matter how you look at it. Okrand should be
embarrassed if he looked closely at it.
> All that said, you probably would have been better served with {nov}
>>
>> or {pIm}, since {latlh} could easily be another Klingon, and the
>> language might not be different from a Klingon's language at all.
>
> Again, I refer you to the Okrandian example above. The construction
> {latlh} NOUN can be used (and has been used in canon) to mean
> "(an)other
> NOUN" and not "(an)other's NOUN" or "NOUN of (an)other". When I talk
> about one {Hol} and then say {latlh Hol}, judging by canon, it would
> be
> understood as "another language" and not "somebody else's language".
> While perhaps I another word would have served, I was best served by
> {latlh} because that was what I meant. I have to do enough
> circumlocution in Klingon that I prefer not to do so when the word I
> want already exists.
I don't see this as an argument as to why {nov} or {pIm} would not
have been a better choice.
>>>> QoQ ta nIHwI' Darur.
>>> jIyajbe'. mu'tlhegh vIyaj. "You resemble a thief of recorded music
>>> (lit.
>>> music record)". 'ach qech vIyajbe'. qatlh Dochvam vIrur 'e' DaQub?
>>
>> QoQ qon muchwI'. tavam ngev. Huchvammo' latlh qonlaH muchwI'.
>> SoplaHtaH. yInlaHtaH. <<pem ghIgh>> poQbe'.
>>
>> tavam qon nIHwI'. je'be'. tlhap neH. 'ach not nIH 'e' qap.
>> <<(vIqonmeH) wa'logh tavetlh vIlo' neH . tavetlh vIghajbe' (taqoqwIj
>> vIlo'qa'mo'), vaj vIje'nISbe'!>>
>>
>> wejpuH. batlhHa' ngorta'.
>
> Okay, so you think I'm a digital pirate. I can see why you make the
> connection between what I said and digital theft, but consider this:
> This kind of piracy is actually based on taking something away from
> the
> owner. Because the pirate did not pay for the recording, the musician
> did not get the money.
>
> Language borrowing is totally dissimilar. The language being borrowed
> from loses nothing as a result of the borrowing.
>
> And am I to understand from this that the mutual respect you spoke of
> above consists of you being allowed to compare me to a dishonorable
> thief while I am not allowed to say anything that you might consider
> criticism?
You are very much off topic for this message list. Say it in Klingon,
or don't say it.
>>> tlhIngan Hol lo'lu'taHvIS ngIplaH'a' Hol? wISovbe'. nIHlaH'a' Hol?
>>>>> wISovbe'.
>>>> Can a language borrow while one uses a Klingon's language? We don't
>>>> know it. Can a language steal? We don't know it.
>>> bIyajbe'chugh, pIch Daghajbe'. rut tlhIngan Hol wIjatlhtaHvIS, mu'
>>> DIreyniS. vaj jiQIj:
>>>
>>> While one uses Klingon, can a language borrow? = Can we use the
>>> expression "a language borrows" in Klingon?
>>
>> qaq mIw pIm.
>>
>> mu'mey nov lo'laH tlhIngan Hol?
>
> "A different method (process) is preferable. Can Klingon use new
> words?"
{nov} is "alien, foreign", not "new".
> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we should say
> this a
> different way. But that was the point I was making in that part of my
> message: We don't know how Klingons say this. We do know that they use
> figurative language, and we do know that Okrand has used "borrow" in
> English to describe not only Klingon absorbing words from English, but
> Klingon reusing words from Klingon.
>
>>>>> (ghu'vam'e' lugh <nIHghach>, <ngIpghach> je):
>
>>>> "As for this situation, stealation and borrowation are
>>>> correct." [?]
>
>>> motlh mojaQ <-ghach> lo'laHDI' vay', latlh mojaQ je poQ mu'. 'ach
>>> rut
>>> pagh latlh mojaQ poQ mu'. (pIjHa' qaS qhu' Seghvetlh.) ghu'
>>> Seghvetlh
>>> 'oH ghu'vam'e' 'e' vIHar.
>>
>> jar maHar.
>
> "A month we believe."
HIvqa' veqlargh. jaS maHar.
>
> My best guess here is that you meant {jaS maHar}, in which case I
> would
> respond that I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. (But I do
> have to wonder who the "we" is.)
You and I believe differently. We believe differently. In English, as
in Klingon, there is no grammatical distinction between the inclusive
and exclusive first person plural.
> Or perhaps this is some new idiom (or new meaning of {jar}) that
> cropped
> up in the last couple of years?
>
> I was trying to point out that I was not mistakenly using {-ghach}
> on a
> naked verb - I was doing it intentionally. I pointed that out because
> some on this list are touchy about {-ghach}. (Or at least were when I
> was active on this list before.)
I continue to be touchy about using {-ghach} on bare verbs. I see it
as less incorrect than lazy. There are very few settings in which {-
ghach} is necessary, though as English speakers, we're often tempted
to go there excessively because English verbifies its nouns and
nominalizes its verbs whenever it pleases. This is not nearly as
common in Klingon as in English.
>> jIH SoHbe'ba'.
>
> quSDaq bIba'
jIba'lI'.
Doq