tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 07 12:24:14 2015
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: wej
Robyn Stewart (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Ayup, I've done the same thing in English, thought I was finding a way to
say something more clearly, but only finding a different way to be
misunderstood. Good one.
So let's imagine I'm stuck in a who's on first type routine with SuStel,
with him still not understanding how many warriors I see. You can have fun
teasing ambiguity out of most of these if you're obstinate and imaginative
about context. I suppose that "wej (3)" on legal documents is very important
pagh vIlegh. wej paw SuvwI'pu'.
SuvwI' 'ar vIlegh? wej vIlegh.
wa', cha', wej, SuvwI' vItogh.
cha' vIlegh ... 'ej SaH je latlh.
paSlaw' SuvwI'. wej chaH vIlegh.
Qugh, Qel, QaS je vIlegh.
naDev Qu' vIbuS. wej SuvwI'pu' vIlegh.
I want to speak to the incredulity of learners that it is feasible to have
ambiguity that requires such forethought to resolve. It is doable and it's
not even bizarre.
Non-native English speakers are boggled by the fact that we can hear the
difference between "I can go" and "I can't" go. They struggle to hear the t,
not knowing that often it isn't even there. It's the quality of the a that
distinguishes the two in rapid speech. Native speakers often don't know
that either. They just understand.
On 4/7/2015 2:42 PM, SuStel wrote:
> On 4/7/2015 2:26 PM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
>> Other clarification techniques:
>> SuvwI''e' wej vIllegh.
> As for warriors, I see three.
I don't yet see a WARRIOR.
(That's what I meant to send.)
Tlhingan-hol mailing list