[3193] in tlhIngan-Hol
Computer languages
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Feb 15 15:58:22 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:52:30 -0500
In-Reply-To: Captain Krankor's message of Mon, 14 Feb 94 20:00:45 -0700 <940215
0257.AA22045@codex.com>
>From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 20:00:45 -0700
>>>taHmeH "ENTER" yI'uy...
>>This is okay as it stands, *BUT* bear in mind what it means. "Press Enter
>>in order that *it* continue." That's an okay reading of the usual English
>>sentence, but if you're thinking of "press enter to continue" in the sense
>>of "press enter in order that *you* continue", you should have "bItaHmeH".
>>Remember: -meH clauses are a fine way to handle infinitive phrases in many
>>cases, but Klingon does *not* have infinitives. All the verbs are finite,
>>even the ones in -meH clauses.
>Actually, this has come up before, and I'm afraid you're off-base,
>mark. -meH verbs can indeed be unprefixed and indefinite, although
>they certainly can also be explicitly prefixed. That does not mean
>that they are infinitives per se either, of course. But the canonical
>example from the dictionary cheat-sheet:
>Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH "How much do you want for that?"
Oh, yuck! QI'yaH. That *really* doesn't sit well with me. Eww. It just
doesn't seem right that "-meH" should be able to create infinitive-sounding
things just like that. Um, the dictionary has a typo, yeah, that's it.
There are lots of typos, and... you're not buying it, huh. OK, um, it's
clipped, yeah. Clipped, losing the prefix "cho-" or something. Yeah. You
won't let me get away with that either, will you.
*sigh* If I'm stuck, I guess I'll do the next best thing. I can't say
that Okrand is wrong (perish the thought), but I will resolve not to
encourage such usage in my own works or in others', as a stylistic manner,
in the hopes that it will at least become less common. So there.
>So "taHmeH "ENTER" yI'uy" does NOT necessarly mean "Press Enter in
>order that *it* continue". I've never really liked it, but there it
>is.
I don't like it either. Maybe we can get Okrand to come out against it and
retrofit the sentence somehow. It probably just slipped by him.
>>'Course, then there's the question of whether or not "taH" is the best
>>verb; "bItaHmeH <<Enter>> yI'uy" sounds like a threat to me: if you don't
>>press Enter, you won't continue existing... :)
>This is a better criticism. I think taH is wholly inappropriate
>there. Not the right meaning of "continue". In fact, I'm not even
>sure that any rendering of "continue", i.e. with a -taH suffix on a
>verb, isn't too literal. I think I might do this as something like:
>vumqa'meH "ENTER" yI'uy
>After all, -taH indicates continuous, on-going action. -qa' means to
>resume, which is really what is meant.
Yeah, I like this one best I think. I've been reviewing my own and others'
(yes, s', charghwI'; others's looks and more importantly sounds wrong to
me, though maybe you were right about glass') use of "-qa'". We've been
using it quite a bit for "re-" as in "again", when it really means more
like "keep going after stopping."
>>>awest@netlink.nix.com
>>~mark
> --Qanqor
~mark
