[98272] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Verbing objects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Fri Mar 28 07:57:34 2014
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>, "tlhingan-hol@kli.org"
<tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:56:54 +0000
In-Reply-To: <FE1C9D4A-EBFF-46E0-A702-C08FC19275A5@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
> It just comes across as lazy. You don't want a language. You want a cleve=
r,
> easy method of encoding English. Meanwhile Klingon rather inconveniently
> happens to be a language. =
I think that's incredibly unfair.
I personally enjoy the differences between Klingon and the languages I know=
far more than the similarities, and I'm delighted that there are uses of '=
e' that don't make much sense when translated word-for-word into Klingon (s=
uch as {tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh 'e' vISIv.}).
However, we're all making "best guesses" as to how many - if not most - wor=
ds are to be used in Klingon, and it's only natural that what tastes good i=
n one person's ear might not taste as well in everybody else's.
For example, I'm not too crazy about using {ghov} with a sentence as an obj=
ect. The only canonical example of {ghov} (that I know of) is {qamlIj vIgho=
v.} from KGT, meaning "I recognize your foot." (though it's probably meant =
to mean "I recognize your face.", spoken in the Krotmag dialect).
Does it make sense that the same verb that's used to say you recognize some=
thing by its countenance would be used to say you recognize the truth of a =
statement? To some, I'm sure, but to me that's very strange. I'd much soone=
r go with {tlhoj} ("realize"), but I'm sure some would argue against that, =
because they interpret that word as "to become aware of a fact or situation=
" (i.e. "I only just realized that.") and never as "to grasp or understand =
clearly" (i.e. "I realize that."), and would opt for {yaj}, or {Sov}, or so=
mething else.
I'm not saying {maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'.} is a perfect Klingon phrase (to begi=
n with, it's a translation of an English cliche sentence which Klingons may=
never use), but you can't dismiss other people's word use as lazy just bec=
ause you disagree with it.
________________________________________
From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv [lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 12:19
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Verbing objects
While I agree with all of this, the English sentence that was originally be=
ing translated, "We agree to disagree," uses an infinitive, which Klingon d=
oesn't have, so why slavishly hang on to the nearest wording we can think o=
f, which is apparently, "We agree that we disagree."? This is awkward, but =
acceptable in English. "... that we disagree," isn't a direct object in Eng=
lish.
We don't agree it. We agree "on" it.
Wouldn't it be simpler to rephrase it to:
maQoch 'e' wIghov.
We recognize that we disagree. We accept that we disagree. If you ask "Do y=
ou disagree?" We both answer, "Yes." There are many ways to say this clear=
ly in Klingon. Why push to say something that makes most of us wince becaus=
e it most closely mirrors the literal wording of a specific English stateme=
nt?
It just comes across as lazy. You don't want a language. You want a clever,=
easy method of encoding English. Meanwhile Klingon rather inconveniently h=
appens to be a language.
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:22 PM, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
>> What about {Qoch} & {Qochbe'}? This came up a few months ago regarding u=
se
>> of sentence-as-object for the matter agreed upon: whether it was correct
>> usage to say ?{maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'}. Would you object to this usage? Al=
so
>> an object could logically be the person (dis)agreed with, as in ?{muQoch
>> matlh}. But would a Klingon would tolerate an imprecise construction like
>> ?{maHIvrup 'e' Qoch matlh jIH je} when it would be just as easy to state
>> who thinks what: {maHIvrup 'e' Qub matlh. jIQoch}?
>
> In the end, you're just asking whether the object of {Qoch} is the
> matter disagreed with; the rest is just a distraction.
>
> I like your "I participate conference" idea. If I said, "I disagree
> policy," you'd understand me. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude
> that {ngoch vIQoch} is a valid sentence, if we believe that the only
> restriction on objects is that they make unambiguous sense. If I said,
> "I disagree Maltz," you'd also understand me, so perhaps {matlh vIQoch}
> is also valid.
>
> I'm not saying this is a grammatical proof of anything, just that we
> might use it to help us English-addled people try to figure out whether
> an object makes sense with the given gloss. For instance, I can say, "I
> sleep bed," and you'd understand me, but in this case *{QongDaq vIQong}
> is=97presumably=97not valid, because you don't sleep the bed, you sleep
> ON the bed, and Klingon has a noun case for that: {QongDaqDaq jIQong}.
>
> As for your sentence-as-object example, I think it's flawed. If we
> assume that {Qoch} can take an object, then I interpret {maHIvrup 'e'
> wIQoch jIH matlh je} as "Maltz and I (both) disagree that we are ready
> to attack." In other words, we both think we're not ready to attack;
> we're not disagreeing with each other. Perhaps to disagree with each
> other we need to say {maQochchuq}, but then we obviously can't add an
> {'e'} object to that sentence.
>
> Like I said, if we give up a strict interpretation of our English
> glosses, it becomes difficult to decide on proper subjects and objects.
> But I think that might just be the boat we're in.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
