[98280] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Verbing objects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bellerophon, modeler)
Sat Mar 29 01:00:45 2014
In-Reply-To: <FE1C9D4A-EBFF-46E0-A702-C08FC19275A5@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 01:00:11 -0400
From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============4385341547219387208==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11330a746f890004f5b7b1cf
--001a11330a746f890004f5b7b1cf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <
lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I agree with all of this, the English sentence that was originally
> being translated, "We agree to disagree," uses an infinitive, which Kling=
on
> doesn't have, so why slavishly hang on to the nearest wording we can thin=
k
> of, which is apparently, "We agree that we disagree."? This is awkward, b=
ut
> acceptable in English. "... that we disagree," isn't a direct object in
> English.
>
> 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
> you disagree?" We both answer, "Yes." There are many ways to say this
> clearly in Klingon. Why push to say something that makes most of us wince
> because it most closely mirrors the literal wording of a specific English
> statement?
>
> 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 happens to be a language.
>
Some background: The discussion of this particular sentence began in
September when Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller reported that ?{maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'}=
was
canon, but subsequently the story came out that while MO hadn't overtly
rejected it, he hadn't endorsed it either.
The point of the current discussion wasn't really about rendering the
English clich=C3=A9. "Let's agree to disagree" seems now to be used mainly =
as a
code for "You're wrong, but I'm the grown-up here," which is
passive-aggressive posturing, something alien to Klingons. Rather, the
point is that if it isn't clear what usages are acceptable, one might not
summarily reject a novel usage as long as it is unambiguous. Valid objects
of Qoch/Qochbe' could then include a sentence-as-object or the person
(dis)agreed with. One might come up with such usages experimentally, in the
process of trying to express a thought. It seems to me that experimenting
with usage can be instructive. It can certainly reveal ambiguity. But I'm
not advocating misusing words just because of a weak vocabulary, or
mechanically translating sentences into Klingon as if it weren't a language
of its own.
As with other verbs, the usage of "agree" in English is idiomatic: we
happen to say "agree on it" or "about it" (or "to it" for a contract)
rather than "agree for it." Similarly in other languages: why in German
"zustimmen" for "agree" instead of "anstimmen" (or auf-, mit-, etc.)?
Prepositions and separable prefixes help expand the range of objects for a
verb and add new senses to it, even totally new meanings. Klingon is rather
short on syntactic markers like these for objects: two dealing with
location, one for causality, one corresponding to dative case, but none
dealing with instrument, manner, accompaniment, time, etc., and none have
multiple uses, as "with" does: "I eat with my friend," and "I eat with a
fork."
As for maQoch 'e' wIQochbe', I think it expresses the feeble witticism of
the English clich=C3=A9 rather well, as opposed to maQoch 'e' wIghov. It do=
esn't
seem like a very Klingon thing to say, though.
~'eD
--=20
My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog: http://bellerophon.blog.com
--001a11330a746f890004f5b7b1cf
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Mar 28, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">lojmitti7w=
i7nuv@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,2=
04,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">While I agree with all of=
this, the English sentence that was originally being translated, "We =
agree to disagree," uses an infinitive, which Klingon doesn't have=
, so why slavishly hang on to the nearest wording we can think of, which is=
apparently, "We agree that we disagree."? This is awkward, but a=
cceptable in English. "... that we disagree," isn't a direct =
object in English.<br>
<br>
We don't agree it. We agree "on" it.<br>
<br>
Wouldn't it be simpler to rephrase it to:<br>
<br>
maQoch 'e' wIghov.<br>
<br>
We recognize that we disagree. We accept that we disagree. If you ask "=
;Do you disagree?" We both answer, "Yes." =C2=A0There are ma=
ny ways to say this clearly in Klingon. Why push to say something that make=
s most of us wince because it most closely mirrors the literal wording of a=
specific English statement?<br>
<br>
It just comes across as lazy. You don't want a language. You want a cle=
ver, easy method of encoding English. Meanwhile Klingon rather inconvenient=
ly happens to be a language.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Some backg=
round: The discussion of this particular sentence began in September when A=
ndr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller reported that ?{maQoch 'e' wIQochbe'} was=
canon, but subsequently the story came out that while MO hadn't overtl=
y rejected it, he hadn't endorsed it either.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>The point of the current discussion wasn't re=
ally about rendering the English clich=C3=A9. "Let's agree to disa=
gree" seems now to be used mainly as a code for "You're wrong=
, but I'm the grown-up here," which is passive-aggressive posturin=
g, something alien to Klingons. Rather, the point is that if it isn't c=
lear what usages are acceptable, one might not summarily reject a novel usa=
ge as long as it is unambiguous. Valid objects of Qoch/Qochbe' could th=
en include a sentence-as-object or the person (dis)agreed with. One might c=
ome up with such usages experimentally, in the process of trying to express=
a thought. It seems to me that experimenting with usage can be instructive=
. It can certainly reveal ambiguity. But I'm not advocating misusing wo=
rds just because of a weak vocabulary, or mechanically translating sentence=
s into Klingon as if it weren't a language of its own.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As with other verbs, the usage of "agree" in =
English is idiomatic: we happen to say "agree on it" or "abo=
ut it" (or "to it" for a contract) rather than "agree f=
or it." Similarly in other languages: why in German "zustimmen&qu=
ot; for "agree" instead of "anstimmen" (or auf-, mit-, =
etc.)? Prepositions and separable prefixes help expand the range of objects=
for a verb and add new senses to it, even totally new meanings. Klingon is=
rather short on syntactic markers like these for objects: two dealing with=
location, one for causality, one corresponding to dative case, but none de=
aling with instrument, manner, accompaniment, time, etc., and none have mul=
tiple uses, as "with" does: "I eat with my friend," and=
"I eat with a fork."</div>
<div><br></div><div>As for maQoch 'e' wIQochbe', I think it exp=
resses the feeble witticism of the English clich=C3=A9 rather well, as oppo=
sed to maQoch 'e' wIghov. It doesn't seem like a very Klingon t=
hing to say, though.</div>
<div><br></div><div>~'eD</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br>My modeling b=
log:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http:=
//bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon-m=
odeler.blogspot.com/</a><br>My other modeling blog:=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http:/=
/bellerophon.blog.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon.blog.com</a><b=
r>
</div></div>
--001a11330a746f890004f5b7b1cf--
--===============4385341547219387208==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============4385341547219387208==--
