[869] in tlhIngan-Hol
law'/puS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri May 14 01:55:31 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: trI'Qal <DOBELBOWER%OPUS@cutter.mco.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: 13 May 1993 22:58:14 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
Greetings.
I have been told there has been considerable debate here in the past of the
usefulness of the law'/puS construction. In a private letter to me concerning
a translation I did, it was pointed out to me that only a noun or noun phrase
may go into the A/B slots. Now, I am still kinda new to this, but my still-
developing "feel" for Hol'a' tells me that law'/puS is very flexible; more so,
in fact, than I have been led to believe. Since that is not any sort of valid
proof, I turned to the reasons I was given for the "nouns-only" rule that I
have been hearing, and looked at them more closely. the first argument was,
mainly, that because the KD says: "... A and B are the two _things_ being
compared..." (p. 70) [underscoring is my addition], only nouns could go there.
That doesn't make sense to me. Here is why:
According to my terran dictionary (_The Concise American Heritage
Dictionary_; Sorry, I could not locate my Webster's at the time, but I think
you will find that my arguement will still hold... feel free to let me know if
it doesn't. {{:) ), a "noun" is:
n. A word used to name a person, place, thing, quality or action.
Sounds like the old "person, place or thing" to me, more or less... (Yes,
Qanqor, I remember them. {{;) ) From this definition, I can say some nouns are
things. However, there is a law in logic which I learned somewhere... (the
only one in fact); just because p can yield q (a noun can be a thing), does not
mean that all q's are p's (all things are nouns)... yet this is what the reason
for "nouns-only" is based on? Or at least, that was the understanding I got...
Well, what is meant by "thing", then? (sorry if I am going too simplisitc
here... some of this is very confusing, even to me, if I try to go too fast,
and I would like there to be no confusion over my intentions, as there could
be). Again, I use my dictionary:
n. 1. Something that exists; entityy. 2. A tangible object. 3. An
inanimate object. 4. A creature. 5. (things) a. Possessions; belongings. b.
the general state of affairs; conditions. 6. An article of clothing. 7. An
act, deed, or work. 8. A thought or notion. 9. a piece of information. 10.
A matter to be dealt with. 11. A turn of events. 12. (slang) A uniquely
suitable or slightly satisfying activity; "doing his own thing."
Hm. Interesting. Now, let's look at the translation I submitted which
started this whole mess (with the other, obvious grammatical errors corrected;
I made a few typos and syntactic errors):
jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh puS!
The intended translation? "When I am *tired*, I translate better than when
I am *awake*!" The "problem" is that I have not used a noun in my law'/puS; I
used subordinate clauses. *BUT*, these are "turn of events", or better still,
I have used a phrase describing "the general state of affairs". I used
*THINGS*. (actually, you should be able to put *anything* there, because ideas
can be things [the idea of a sentence, noun, verb, etc.] Neat huh?)
I was also presented the arguement that the translation qiven in the book
of "A's Q is many..." gives A a possessive, which only nouns can take. Perhaps
this will give the presenter pause to think it over: We are discussing a
foriegn, *alien* language. In so doing, we have to translate *concepts*, not
literally. Just because the terran translation gives A&B something nouns can
have, IN TERRAN, does *not* mean that the tlhIngan *must* be the same. Think
in terms of the concept (not always easy, I know {{:( ): law'/puS is like very
much like > and less than... but you don't need to have nouns on either side of
those, do you?
Being willing to admit my errors, I admit that the translation I gave was
not the best for what I wanted. What I *should* have said is:
jIDay'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS.
In this case, I am using the whole sentences as A and B.
Personally, seen in this light (if any of you actually followed all of
that; sorry it was so *long* [and *boring*]), this makes the law'/puS
construction one of the most beautiflu, flexible concepts in the whole Hol'a'
so far... I don't know what all I could do with it, yet, but it solves the
better/worse problem, I think.
In any case, I am sure I have stirred up a hornet's nest with this, so I
will be looking for responses. (and don't panic if I am slow to respond. I am
*still* behind on my email. {{:/)
Mebby we should send this to Okrand? {{;)
I have a a few possible translations I sent in for "too" something... they
don't appear to have gotten through though... so I will try again in a later
posting.
--trI'Qal
