[112066] in tlhIngan-Hol
[tlhIngan Hol] logically/semantically connected sentences without
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Wed Mar 6 04:29:36 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmMufM6JH9rT2Xk_2i-9zRzsUadDJvRh7uinPePFXymFZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:29:22 +0100
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Cc: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0483399228655696304==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a27bfd058369a076"
--000000000000a27bfd058369a076
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
[was Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS]
De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 27. Feb. 2019, 18:25:
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 15:47, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
>> I get the feeling, from Okrand's translations as well as the text in TKD,
>> that the second sentence of a sentence-as-object is supposed to be a fairly
>> lightweight thing, not meant to carry the bulk of the meaning: "[*'e'*
>> and *net*] are used primarily, though not exclusively, with verbs of
>> thinking or observation (such as *know, see*)." When we go far afield
>> from that, we strain the ability of the language to deliver the intended
>> meaning.
>>
>
> I also get the feeling that {'e'} is overused (though {net} is perhaps
> underused). Often, when I see a sentence on this mailing list written with
> {'e'}, I think that Okrand would've written it as two grammatically
> unconnected sentences.
>
This is something that Okrand does frequently enough, and which other
people writing Klingon (almost) never do, that I think it's worth pointing
out. Maybe we should be following Okrand's example and writing pairs of
sentences with fewer {'ej}s and {'e'} between them, and just let the
context indicate that the sentences are "connected".
From Power Klingon:
{'uSDaj chop! chev!} "Bite his/her leg off!"
{targhlIj yIngagh! yIruch!} "Go mate with your targ!"
The first is a pet command, and is obviously clipped. But still, it doesn't
seem like anything was dropped which would've grammatically connected
{chev} to {chop}. I think if one of us had been asked to translate "bite
someone's leg off", we'd have likely gone with {'uSDaj chevmeH chop} or
something like that.
As for the second sentence, again, based on the Klingon sentences written
on this mailing list, I think most people would've written {targhlIj
Dangagh 'e' yIruch!}
Okrand has said in interviews that often, when he's asked to translate
something, the number of sentences in the Klingon translation doesn't match
the number in the English. A good example of this is the last line of the
anthem:
"We battle forever, battling on through the Eternal fight."
{reH maSuvtaHqu'. mamevQo'. maSuvtaH. ma'ov.}
Another example, from Star Trek V:
{yISo'Ha'rup, yIghuS.}
"Stand by to de-cloak for firing."
Again, this could've been {bIghuSmeH yISo'Ha'rup!} but it's two separate
sentences instead.
Recently, there was this:
{chorgh 'uj(mey) lID SuvwI'; ron}
"the warrior rolled (haphazardly) for eight ujes"
Again, there's no {lIDmeH} or {rontaHvIS}. It's just {lID}, {ron}.
This one was my example, but it's based on Okrand's description of how
{lol} and {much} work together and he approved it:
{lol SuvwI'; mI'loD much}
There's also this, which is joined with {'ej}:
{qaS qepHom 'ej jIjeS.}
I bring up this example because, for many years, people on the mailing list
tried to put the event as the object of {jeS} (as in *{qepHom vIjeS}) or
marked it with {-vaD} (like *{qepHomvaD jIjeS}). But it turns out that you
can just state that something is happening, and that you participate, and
the context is what determines that you're participating in the thing
that's happening. I think you should also be able to just say {qaS qepHom;
jIjeS} and be understood. (You could also say {qaStaHvIS qepHom jIjeS},
which has a slightly different emphasis. But my point is that the second
sentence/verb doesn't necessarily have to explicitly refer to the object or
topic of the first, or even be grammatically joined to it.)
I think that very often, people use {'e'} or {-meH} or {-taHvIS} to join
Klingon sentences into one which would be expressed using a single sentence
in English, but there's no reason the Klingon translation doesn't just use
multiple grammatically independent sentences.
--
De'vID
--000000000000a27bfd058369a076
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div di=
r=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"au=
to"><div>[was Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS]<br><br><div=
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">De'vID <=
;<a href=3D"mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">de.vid.jonpin=
@gmail.com</a>> schrieb am Mi., 27. Feb. 2019, 18:25:<br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px =
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">=
<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">=
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 15:47, SuStel <<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.=
name" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wro=
te:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px =
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
=20
=20
=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
<div class=3D"gmail-m_-8857008817267023076m_-5433679726365193566gmail-m=
_-66148344963485613moz-cite-prefix">I get the feeling, from Okrand's
translations as well as the text in TKD, that the second sentence
of a sentence-as-object is supposed to be a fairly lightweight
thing, not meant to carry the bulk of the meaning: "[<b>'e&#=
39;</b>
and <b>net</b>] are used primarily, though not exclusively, with
verbs of thinking or observation (such as <i>know, see</i>)."
When we go far afield from that, we strain the ability of the
language to deliver the intended meaning.</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div>I also get the feeling that {'=
;e'} is overused (though {net} is perhaps underused). Often, when I see=
a sentence on this mailing list written with {'e'}, I think that O=
krand would've written it as two grammatically unconnected sentences.</=
div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div>This is=
something that Okrand does frequently enough, and which other people writi=
ng Klingon (almost) never do, that I think it's worth pointing out. May=
be we should be following Okrand's example and writing pairs of sentenc=
es with fewer {'ej}s and {'e'} between them, and just let the c=
ontext indicate that the sentences are "connected".</div><div><br=
></div><div>From Power Klingon:</div><div>{'uSDaj chop! chev!} "Bi=
te his/her leg off!"</div><div>{targhlIj yIngagh! yIruch!} "Go ma=
te with your targ!"</div><div><br></div><div>The first is a pet comman=
d, and is obviously clipped. But still, it doesn't seem like anything w=
as dropped which would've grammatically connected {chev} to {chop}. I t=
hink if one of us had been asked to translate "bite someone's leg =
off", we'd have likely gone with {'uSDaj chevmeH chop} or some=
thing like that.</div><div><br></div><div>As for the second sentence, again=
, based on the Klingon sentences written on this mailing list, I think most=
people would've written {targhlIj Dangagh 'e' yIruch!}=C2=A0</=
div><div><br></div><div>Okrand has said in interviews that often, when he&#=
39;s asked to translate something, the number of sentences in the Klingon t=
ranslation doesn't match the number in the English. A good example of t=
his is the last line of the anthem:<br></div><div>"We battle forever, =
battling on through the Eternal fight."<br></div><div>{reH maSuvtaHqu&=
#39;. mamevQo'. maSuvtaH. ma'ov.}</div><div><br></div><div><div>Ano=
ther example, from Star Trek V:</div><div>{yISo'Ha'rup, yIghuS.}<br=
></div><div>"Stand by to de-cloak for firing."<br></div><div><br>=
</div>Again, this could've been {bIghuSmeH yISo'Ha'rup!} but it=
's two separate sentences instead.</div><div><br></div><div>Recently, t=
here was this:</div><div>{chorgh 'uj(mey) lID SuvwI'; ron}</div><di=
v>"the warrior rolled (haphazardly) for eight ujes"</div><div><br=
></div><div>Again, there's no {lIDmeH} or {rontaHvIS}. It's just {l=
ID}, {ron}.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div>This one was my exa=
mple, but it's based on Okrand's description of how {lol} and {much=
} work together and he approved it:</div><div dir=3D"auto"><div>{lol SuvwI&=
#39;; mI'loD much}<br></div><br class=3D"gmail-Apple-interchange-newlin=
e"></div><div>There's also this, which is joined with {'ej}:=C2=A0<=
/div><div>{qaS qepHom 'ej jIjeS.}<br><br class=3D"gmail-Apple-interchan=
ge-newline"></div><div>I bring up this example because, for many years, peo=
ple on the mailing list tried to put the event as the object of {jeS} (as i=
n *{qepHom vIjeS}) or marked it with {-vaD} (like *{qepHomvaD jIjeS}). But =
it turns out that you can just state that something is happening, and that =
you participate, and the context is what determines that you're partici=
pating in the thing that's happening. I think you should also be able t=
o just say {qaS qepHom; jIjeS} and be understood. (You could also say {qaSt=
aHvIS qepHom jIjeS}, which has a slightly different emphasis. But my point =
is that the second sentence/verb doesn't necessarily have to explicitly=
refer to the object or topic of the first, or even be grammatically joined=
to it.)</div><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div>I think th=
at very often, people use {'e'} or {-meH} or {-taHvIS} to join Klin=
gon sentences into one which would be expressed using a single sentence in =
English, but there's no reason the Klingon translation doesn't just=
use multiple grammatically independent sentences.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><=
br></div></div><div dir=3D"auto">--=C2=A0</div><div>De'vID</div><div di=
r=3D"auto"></div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
--000000000000a27bfd058369a076--
--===============0483399228655696304==
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
--===============0483399228655696304==--
