[988] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: verbs in compounds (was: Re: epithets (taHqeq))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jun 15 17:52:40 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: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:38:49 -0400
A.APPLEYARDvo':
-----------------
> Then how <do> we translate bahuvrihis etc without long awkward periphrases?
>With a relative clause, we are back to the ambiguity of which word is the
>antecedent: e.g. `Doqbogh jIbDaj`?; inserting `'e'` would make FIVE syllables;
>and, as I mentioned before, such a use of `'e'` is ambiguous between "this,
>that" and ordinary emphasis and antecedent-marker.
-----------------
marqem had some good comments on this. Let me add another thought
or two.
How <do> we translate them? Well, I think you have to take them on
a case-by-case basis, but it very well may be the case that often
the answer is simply "You can't." It's not even clear to me that
this is something that Okrand could necessarily help us with by
providing a rule, because the more I think about it, the more I
conclude that compounds are not really rule-based. I'm sure our
sundry terran linguists can help me out here and confirm or deny,
but my reasoning goes like this: Suppose you were learning English
as a second language, and you knew that English did indeed have
compunds of the form <adjective-noun>, and you wanted to refer to a
red-haired person but didn't know the word "redhead". You might
well try to apply the rule and come up with "redhair" or
"orangehead" or even "rustscalp", largely influenced, probably, by
however it is said in your native tongue. Yet, though they follow
the rule, these solutions are wrong. It seems to me that the
problem is that, in the end, compound words are not about syntax,
they are about vocabulary. We can look at a compound and identify
the component parts that went to make it up, but in the end, it's just a word.
Which means that the only way we're *really* going to know how to
say "redhead" is if there's a new dictionary entry for that specific
word. Lacking that, your choice would be to either use a
descriptive phrase (jIb Doq ghajbogh nuv'e' ghaHtaH) or just give in
and use the English ("redhead" ghaHtaH). If a language doesn't have
a word, then it doesn't have a word and there's no sense breaking
your teeth on it. French didn't have a word for "weekend", so they
say "le weekend"; by now I'm sure they think it's a French word.
As I read over what I've written, it occurs to me to throw in a
caveat: Compounds appear to not be rule-based in terran languages
with which I am familiar; I suppose it is true that that need not
carry over into Klingon. That is, if Okrand *wanted* to give us a
firm rule to apply, there's nothing really precluding that.
--Krankor
