[111661] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] verbs with {-bogh} and numbers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Fri Oct 20 03:50:45 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <fe05d20c-8264-c923-a717-2fbd276d1d03@trimboli.name>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:14:08 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0346442219434218187==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113dbb424f8340055becd68f"
--001a113dbb424f8340055becd68f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:53 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> Is it any more ambiguous than the English *Romulan hunter-killer probe?*
> Is that a hunter-killer probe that hunts and kills Romulans or a
> hunter-killer probe of Romulan make? Why isn't it a *hunter-killer
> Romulan probe?* Doesn't *hunter-killer Romulan probe* sound just plain
> WRONG to you, even though it can't be misinterpreted?
>
I do think the English phrase "Romulan hunter-killer probe" is potentially
ambiguous. As you point out, trying to clarify the meaning simply by
shifting a word doesn't sound right because of how English arranges
adjectives. If I were worried that context wouldn't make things clear, I'd
probably have to include other words entirely: "a hunter-killer probe built
by Romulans", "a probe that hunts and kills Romulans". Both of those
phrasings include relative clauses, and are a little more complex than a
noun phrase. So I would probably be willing to put up with a little more
grammatical ambiguity before I decide to move away from the simpler
four-noun phrase.
This isn't the case with the Klingon, though. We don't know what sounds
wrong to native speakers, and clearing up the ambiguity simply requires
moving a noun, rather than rephrasing the idea entirely into a somewhat
more complex form. It's less of a hassle to remove the ambiguity than it is
in the English.
> Does Klingon obey those rules? No idea. But when a native English speaker
> invents the language and translates into it, it's possible that he is
> unconsciously following those rules. I wouldn't declare this sort of thing
> solved, but it's worth examining Okrand's possible biases in this light.
>
That sounds like a reasonable explanation for why he phrased it that way.
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the fact that a lot of Okrand's
Klingon is translated from an English original, how that might have
affected the writing style of canon Klingon, and what other sorts of
less-English writing styles there are. But I don't have my thoughts
together enough to really post about it yet.
--001a113dbb424f8340055becd68f
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 T=
hu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:53 PM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto=
:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span=
> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#=
FFFFFF"><p>Is it any more ambiguous than the English <i>Romulan
hunter-killer probe?</i> Is that a hunter-killer probe that
hunts and kills Romulans or a hunter-killer probe of Romulan make?
Why isn't it a <i>hunter-killer Romulan probe?</i> Doesn't <i=
>hunter-killer
Romulan probe</i> sound just plain WRONG to you, even though it
can't be misinterpreted?</p></div></blockquote><div>I do think th=
e English phrase "Romulan hunter-killer probe" is potentially amb=
iguous. As you point out, trying to clarify the meaning simply by shifting =
a word doesn't sound right because of how English arranges adjectives. =
If I were worried that context wouldn't make things clear, I'd prob=
ably have to include other words entirely: "a hunter-killer probe buil=
t by Romulans", "a probe that hunts and kills Romulans". Bot=
h of those phrasings include relative clauses, and are a little more comple=
x than a noun phrase. So I would probably be willing to put up with a littl=
e more grammatical ambiguity before I decide to move away from the simpler =
four-noun phrase.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This isn't the case with=
the Klingon, though. We don't know what sounds wrong to native speaker=
s, and clearing up the ambiguity simply requires moving a noun, rather than=
rephrasing the idea entirely into a somewhat more complex form. It's l=
ess of a hassle to remove the ambiguity than it is in the English. <br></di=
v><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF=
"><p>Does Klingon obey those rules? No idea. But when a native English
speaker invents the language and translates into it, it's possibl=
e
that he is unconsciously following those rules. I wouldn't declar=
e
this sort of thing solved, but it's worth examining Okrand's
possible biases in this light.</p></div></blockquote><div>That sounds=
like a reasonable explanation for why he phrased it that way. <br></div><d=
iv><br></div><div>Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the fact that =
a lot of Okrand's Klingon is translated from an English original, how t=
hat might have affected the writing style of canon Klingon, and what other =
sorts of less-English writing styles there are. But I don't have my tho=
ughts together enough to really post about it yet.<br></div></div><br></div=
></div>
--001a113dbb424f8340055becd68f--
--===============0346442219434218187==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============0346442219434218187==--
