[98551] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Canon for answering negative questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com)
Mon May 5 10:32:16 2014
From: lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmPt6kB0dEd0vUiw_ZyvSpuh60VTPCL6Hw4nrVAXGT7qFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 10:31:53 -0400
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
I think there is a fundamental difference between the suffixes {-Ha'} and {=
-be} that runs parallel to the difference in English between "misunderstand=
" and "not understand". In English, the first kind of negation is part of t=
he verb itself, while the second is done with a helper word. In Klingon, th=
e {-Ha'} always comes directly after the verb, while {-be'} is a true rovin=
g suffix, applied following either the verb root or any of its suffixes to =
apply its negativity either to the suffix it follows, or to the whole of th=
e root verb and the preceding suffixes.
Evidence also is that if I ask you:
choyajHa'a'?
Then you can answer either (using your definition of a proper yes/no answer=
):
HIja'. qayajHa'.
or
ghobe'. qayajHa'be'.
But if I ask you:
choyajbe''a'?
then you can answer
HIja'. qayajbe'.
but you can't really answer
*ghobe'. qayajbe'be'.*
We have examples of verbs followed by {-Ha'be'}, but there has never been a=
ny indication that it is acceptable to apply {-be'} to another instance of =
itself. Likely, this could be tantamount to having two verb suffixes of the=
same type applied at once to the same verb.
So, if I ask you a yes/no question that you can't answer "no" to, then it's=
not really a yes/no question, is it?
You could use logic to conclude that the {ghobe'} reply would omit the {-be=
'}, but the simple truth is that language isn't always logical. You can arg=
ue that language SHOULD be logical, and it often is, but relying on logic t=
hat is independent of canon is risky business. One pronouncement from Okran=
d and you are left hanging.
{-Ha'} is the kind of negation English creates with "un-" or "mis", while {=
-be'} is the kind of negation English creates with the helper word "not". A=
s much as I usually fight the idea that Klingon is encoded English, here's =
one instance in which there is a direct parallel between the languages. I'v=
e talked to Okrand about this difference, so I think I understand it pretty=
well.
So, I think you can ask me {choyaj'a'?} and I can answer it {HIja'} or {gho=
be'} and you will be sufficiently and clearly answered, but if I ask you {c=
hoyajbe''a'?}, you'd be better served to give the complete statement and fo=
rget the idea that it's okay to answer {HIja'} or {ghobe'}. It's a weird en=
ough construction that likely the culture handles it idiomatically, if they=
do use {HIja'} or {ghobe'}, and being an outsider, it's probably not safe =
to assume which way the Klingon idiom goes.
We've heard people complaining here about double negatives in English, like=
"I didn't see nothing," or "I ain't goin' nowhere," but I've read where li=
nguists point out that in other languages, particularly in Africa, a double=
negative serves as an emphatic negative, which is exactly the intent of th=
ese English speakers who make the "mistake" of using double negatives. Like=
ly, this use of double negative is less of a mistake than it is a ghostly s=
hadow of dialect developed by people who learned language from a lineage of=
people who, at an earlier time, spoke a language for which double negative=
s are perfectly acceptable as an emphatic negative. It's the kind of thing =
that a child at the peak age of acting as a language sponge would pick up o=
n. It would become a permanent part of what is normal for them in speech. I=
t is sufficiently fundamental that it would be almost like learning a forei=
gn language to stop doing it.
So, perhaps we could consider that and give them a little grace for their p=
erfect understanding of this slight variation of the English language, inst=
ead of judging them of being wrong and deserving correction, or considering=
them to be ignorant or inferior.
None of this helps me improve my opinion of my distant cousin whose ancesto=
rs likely never included anyone who spoke African languages who chided his =
wife saying, "Woman, you ain't got no good English!" He wasn't joking when =
he said that, by the way. His ancestry was fully British, with a touch of C=
herokee, which, I believe, doesn't use double negatives... Nope. He was jus=
t a sexist, putting his wife in what he considered to be her place, which w=
as to shut up and make his dinner.
On May 5, 2014, at 8:58 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Qov:
>>>> What canon do we have indicating whether the answer to a
>>> negative question like :
>>>> =
>>>> 'umbe''a' loDHom?
>>>> =
>>>> would be
>>>> =
>>>> HIja', 'um.
> =
> De'vID:
>>> I don't have any canon, but what reason is there to think it
>>> wouldn't be {HIja', 'umbe'} to begin with? The answer to
>>> {'umchoH'a'} is {HIja', 'umchoH}, and the answer to
>>> {belHa''a'} is {HIja', belHa'}, etc. I can't think of any
>>> reason {-be'} should behave differently than any other suffix
>>> in how it interacts with {-'a'}.
> =
> DloraH:
>> In your examples you did say more than just "yes" or "no". You answered=
with a sentence expressing
>> the correct state.
> =
> That was just to explain or clarify how I'd interpret the answer. But
> I don't think the additional explanation is actually necessary.
> =
> DloraH:
>> But when answering simply yes or no, there can definitely be confusion.
> =
> Is there any reason to believe that {-be'} behaves differently than
> {-Ha'} (or {-qu'} or any other suffix)?
> =
> {QeyHa'?} "Is it tight?"
> {HIja' (QeyHa')} "Yes. (It is tight.)"
> {ghobe' (QeyHa'be'}) "No. (It is not tight.)"
> =
> Or would you interpret {HIja'} as {QeyHa'be'} and {ghobe'} as
> {QeyHa'}, or find a bare {HIja'} or {ghobe'} to be ambiguous? Or to
> use QeS's example:
> =
> {naDev jIQal vIneH; Qobbe''a' bIQ?} "Is it safe to swim here?"
> {HIja'. (Qobbe'.)} "Yes. (It is safe.)"
> {ghobe'. (Qob.)} "No. (It is not safe.)"
> =
> Or would you interpret the responses in the other direction or find
> them ambiguous?
> =
> I'm trying to wrap my head around why anyone thinks this is ambiguous
> *in Klingon*. (I agree that such questions are ambiguous *in English*,
> but I don't see why the answer wouldn't follow the logical parity of
> the question in Klingon.)
> =
> {tujqu''a'?}
> {HIja' (tujqu')}
> {ghobe' (tujqu'be')}
> =
> {tujchoH'a'?}
> {HIja' (tujchoH)}
> {ghobe' (tujchoHbe')}
> =
> With {-qu'}, answering {HIja'} affirms that "yes, it is emphatically
> hot", and {ghobe'} denies that assertion. Similarly, with {-choH},
> answering {HIja'} affirms that "yes, it is becoming hot". This seems
> to apply unambiguously for every suffix. So, with {-be'}, why wouldn't
> {HIja'} be an affirmation of "yes, it is not hot"?
> =
> DloraH:
>> I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the US, we encount=
er too many people that
>> slaughter the language, speaking with double negatives, say things like =
"I can't see nothing." (I
>> encountered this one just yesterday.) Such a person that does speak lik=
e that could certainly give
>> a different answer than someone who is a computer programmer with a hobb=
y in linguistics.
> =
> But how much weight would I want to give to such a person's
> understanding of grammar?
> =
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> My problem with this interpretation of {HIja=92} and {ghobe=92} is that =
different people will say with absolute confidence that a yes or no answer =
means exactly the opposite of what other people say it does.
> =
> Has anyone actually asserted that he or she would interpret {HIja'}
> and {ghobe'} to a negated question in the opposite way to how I'd
> interpret them?
> =
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> In the Shakespeare speech, he is saying, =93Do we not bleed?=94 as a kin=
d of incredulous reaction to the suggestion that we are below the threshold=
of beings one should empathize with. He=92s saying, =93Are you so bold as =
to suggest that we do not bleed?=94
> =
> The answer to a rhetorical question may very well take on meanings
> quite different than the same answer to that question asked in a
> regular, non-rhetorical context. But this discussion is about
> grammatical interaction of {-be'} with {-'a'} in ordinary contexts.
> (Maybe it has a different meaning in rhetorical questions, and maybe
> you have to put {-be'} after {-'a'} if the negated question is a
> toast.) The question I'm answering (and Qov may very well have a
> different idea than me what question she wants answered) is, if I said
> to a medic, {mareghbe''a'?} "Do we not bleed?", would the medic's
> {HIja'} mean "Yes, you do not bleed" or "Yes, you do bleed".
> =
> {mareghchoH'a'?} {HIja' (SureghchoH)}
> {mareghqu''a'?} {HIja' (Sureghqu')}
> {mareghtaH'a'?} {HIja' (SureghtaH)}
> {mareghbe''a'?} {HIja' (Sureghbe')} - if someone interprets {HIja'} as
> {Suregh}, I want to know why
> =
> I'm not saying the opposite interpretation is impossible, but I
> genuinely just don't understand why anyone would interpret it that
> way, given the grammar of Klingon.
> =
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> So, if you answer =93Yes=94 or =93No=94, are you answering the part abou=
t whether or not you are so bold, or are you answering the part about wheth=
er or not we bleed?
> =
> If someone asked me {mareghbe''a'?} in Klingon, I am answering "yes"
> or "no" to whether the statement {mareghbe'} is true. If someone
> wanted to know if I'm so bold as to challenge whether they bleed or
> not, I'd expect the question to be {mareghbe' 'e' Damaq 'e'
> DangIl'a'?}
> =
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> In general, I think this is the kind of question best answered with a cl=
ear and complete statement, instead of bothering with a =93yes=94 or =93no=
=94 that can be so easily misinterpreted.
> =
> I think the question is easily misinterpreted only by English
> speakers. Of course, almost all Klingon speakers are native English
> speakers, so most Klingon speakers will probably find it ambiguous the
> way that you do.
> =
> What you're suggesting is basically an "echo answer":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_answer
> =
> -- =
> De'vID
> =
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
