tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 21 09:02:58 2013

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story: ghuv = The Recruit - 53

De'vID (de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com)



Qov:
>>> mIS torgh. = Torgh is confused.

De'vID:
>> I don't think {mIS} can be used in this way

Quvar:
> I DO think {mIS} can be used in this way.  :-)
>
> qayajbe'mo jImIS.
>
> Unless we have an example, we might never know. On the other hand, I am not
> a native english speaker, so if there is any evidence that "to be mixed up"
> is not an emotional state, then it makes clear what is intended with
> "confused". If not, I'd accept any use that makes sense.

Here is how it's defined in TKD:

K-E:
mIS - be confused, mixed up (v)

E-K:
confused, be confused (v) - mIS
mixed up, be mixed up, be confused (v) - mIS

The English word "be confused" has several meanings, e.g., (1) being
in a state of mental perplexity ("she was confused by the
instructions"), (2) not clearly organised or expressed ("his argument
is quite confused"), (3) mistaken for one another ("the twins are
often confused [with each other]"). These are different concepts which
don't necessarily map to the same word in another language.

An English speaker would not look up "mixed up" to find the Klingon
word to describe someone in a state of mental perplexity. To me, that
makes it fairly clear that the definition "be confused, mixed up" is
intended to clarify that the sense of "be confused" used is that of
things being confused for (i.e., "mixed up" with) one another, rather
than in the sense of mental perplexity. If the mental state had been
intended, I would've expected the definition to say "be confused,
perplexed". If the logical disorganisation sense had been intended,
I'd have expected "be confused, unclear".

Voragh:
> In addition to the simple quality {mIS} "be confused, be mixed up" we have the homophonous noun {mIS} "confusion" and the causative verb {mISmoH} "confuse".  I know of no examples in canon, but I think Qov used it correctly.

It wouldn't surprise me if Marc Okrand had deliberately written the
definitions in such a way as to confuse the reader. :-)

Voragh:
> De'vID may have mixed up {mIS} with {DuD} "mix, stir" (v) - also used by some for "shuffle [cards] (i.e. in {poQ'ar} poker).  A {DuDwI'} is a "stirring stick" (used in cooking; cf. KGT 97) and I wouldn't reject *{DuDmeH maHpIn} for "mixing bowl" if I saw it.

Nope. To "mix, stir" and to "mix up, confuse" are quite distinct
concepts to me.

{mIS torgh torghen je} "Torg and Torgen are mixed up (someone mistook
one of them for the other)"
{torgh torghen je luDuDlu'} "Torg and Torgen are mixed (someone threw
their body parts into a blender)"

-- 
De'vID

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol



Back to archive top level