[tlhIngan Hol] {'e'} of a sao and quotations

[SuStel]

On 8/20/2021 7:53 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> SuStel:
> > The rule is stated in TKD: "Similarly, with verbs of saying (say, 
> tell, ask, etc.),
> >  'e' and net are not used. The two phrases simply follow one 
> another, in either order."
>
> Ok, wait. Does that rule concern too cases, where the purpose of the 
> speaker isn't to actually quote something?

I know where you're going with this, and you're on the wrong track.


> When we say "quotation" what do we actually mean? The way I understand 
> it, if there's: {yaDDa yaDDa yaDDa, jIjatlhpu'}, then the quotation is 
> *only* the {yaDDa yaDDa yaDDa}. The quotation isn't the {jIjatlhpu'} 
> (which I don't know what it actually is..).

This is correct. A quotation is the exact words someone says. The 
*jIjatlhpu'* is a "verb of saying."


> So, in the  {< nucholpu' jaghpu' > jIjatlhpu' HoDvaD 'e' yIjatlh}, no 
> rules are broken, because the object of the sao isn't the quotation, 
> but only the {jIjatlhpu'}.

And here's the problem: all the evidence points to the fact that you 
cannot describe the content of a quotation indirectly in Klingon. You're 
trying to do this.

Okrand, for instance, has told us that the object of *jatlh* must be the 
speech event. For instance, you can *jatlh* a *SoQ* or a *mu'.* A 
description of the /contents/ of a speech event is not the same as a 
word representing a speech event. That means you can't say things like 
*bImoH 'e' vIjatlh* /I say that you are ugly/ because *bImoH* is a 
representation of the contents of what I say, not a word that refers to 
a type of speech event.


> Look at it another way..
>
> Q waved his hand and an officer was rendered unable to talk for a 
> period of time; then Q's power wears off, and the officer starts 
> speaking again. So, he says to another member of the crew:
>
> jIjatlhqa'pu' HoDvaD 'e' yIja'
> tell to the captain that I've spoken again
>
> There's no quotation here. There are no words to be repeated for the 
> captain. Similarly, in the {< nucholpu' jaghpu' > jIjatlhpu' HoDvaD 
> 'e' yIjatlh}, the object is the {jIjatlhpu'} and the < nucholpu' 
> jaghpu' > is something which happily just happens to sit by, away from 
> the {'e'}.
>
> So we're all happy, yes?

No. There is no evidence that you can use *'e'* on *ja'* by changing the 
person of the quotation. You can't transform the quotation to make it a 
not-quotation, then use it the way you were told not to use it. If 
Klingon can do this, Okrand hasn't said so.

For your Q example, all you have to do is this: *jIjatlhqa'pu' HoD 
yIja'*/Tell the captain I have spoken again./ (Alternatively, *HoD yIja' 
jIjatlhqa'pu'.*)

See, for example, how Okrand handles quotations and non-quotations in 
/paq'batlh/ (and remember that this explicitly given to us as an English 
text translated into Klingon, not an original Klingon text):

/Kahless tells his brother and father
     to go their separate ways,
     And travel the lands./

*loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS
     nIteb peghoS
     HatlhDaq peghoS*

Do you see how Okrand has particularly avoided using *'e'* and a 
non-quotation here? He gave us Kahless's exact words, even though the 
English original did not.

Whenever using a verb of saying to describe what is said, always use a 
quotation, even if you're translating and your original does not have a 
quotation. Otherwise you need to find another way of saying it.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210820/58cd42f7/attachment.htm>