[tlhIngan Hol] where the adverb refers and {tlhoS}

[SuStel]

On 8/27/2021 7:11 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> I think the Klingon means something simpler than what the “equivalent” 
> English means.

I think the Klingon means something /broader/ than what the "equivalent" 
English means.


> So, let’s hone in on the difference I’m trying to point to.
>
> “What weapon do you want?”
>
> {nuH yIwIv!}
>
> The latter never MEANS the former, but the former is something that 
> Klingon lacks the grammar and vocabulary to say, so yes, you can 
> translate the latter to the former, but that is never what it means.

Ahem. "Klingon is not a code for English." *nuH yIwIv* doesn't MEAN 
/Choose a weapon! /more than it MEANS /What weapon do you want?/ Both 
are translations. Both are /accurate/ translations. One translation may 
be more suitable in certain contexts than the other. The art of 
translation is the art of transmitting meaning accurately /despite/ 
changes in grammar, vocabulary, semantics, context, and tradition. 
Translation is NOT about finding words that correspond to the same words 
in the other language and fitting them together in the most similar way 
as the source language.


> That’s what I mean by recasting.

I know what recasting means.


> What I’m objecting to is the suggestion that analyzing the grammar of 
> {qalegh je.} you can say that the {je} is pointing to the subject or 
> to the object. It isn’t.

I'm not saying that *je* is pointing to the subject or the object. I'm 
saying that *je* is used in a way that compares a subject to other 
subjects or an object to other objects.

When you say *qaleghpu' je,* it follows on from some previous context. 
The context might be /I saw others,/ in which case the *je* is pointing 
out that /you/ are an addition to what I saw. The context might be 
others saw you, in which case the *je* is pointing out that /I/ am an 
additional person who saw you.

The *je* isn't "pointing to" the subject or object in the way you're 
implying. It signals the listener that /some/ part of the context is 
getting an addition by including this sentence. You can't tell, without 
the context, what part of the sentence is the addition.


> You can set up the understanding in a communication that is longer 
> than a sentence so that one understands that I, in addition to others, 
> see you, but the {je} applies to the entire sentence through the verb, 
> and if you work harder through a unit of communication larger than a 
> sentence, you can convey that meaning.

Yes! The mere use of *je* implies and requires that the sentence is in 
addition to /something./ That something is the context.


> I can describe a lightsaber in Klingon, but that doesn’t make 
> “Lightsaber” part of the Klingon vocabulary (or Universe, for that 
> matter). I have to work with a larger unit of communication than a 
> word to convey lightsaber in Klingon. This is like that.

This is nothing like that.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210827/aa355d3c/attachment-0016.htm>