<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/19/2017 5:14 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvmAyd0Kf3TBaM0S6zkDAoii_dmDyQjdyArqjCw6LJC4g@mail.gmail.com">On
Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:53 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Is it any more ambiguous than the English <i>Romulan
hunter-killer probe?</i> Is that a hunter-killer probe
that hunts and kills Romulans or a hunter-killer probe of
Romulan make? Why isn't it a <i>hunter-killer Romulan
probe?</i> Doesn't <i>hunter-killer Romulan probe</i>
sound just plain WRONG to you, even though it can't be
misinterpreted?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I do think the English phrase "Romulan hunter-killer probe"
is potentially ambiguous. As you point out, trying to clarify
the meaning simply by shifting a word doesn't sound right
because of how English arranges adjectives. If I were worried
that context wouldn't make things clear, I'd probably have to
include other words entirely: "a hunter-killer probe built by
Romulans", "a probe that hunts and kills Romulans". Both of
those phrasings include relative clauses, and are a little more
complex than a noun phrase. So I would probably be willing to
put up with a little more grammatical ambiguity before I decide
to move away from the simpler four-noun phrase.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This isn't the case with the Klingon, though. We don't know
what sounds wrong to native speakers, and clearing up the
ambiguity simply requires moving a noun, rather than rephrasing
the idea entirely into a somewhat more complex form. It's less
of a hassle to remove the ambiguity than it is in the English. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>The word order and potential ambiguity is exactly the same as in
English. The only difference is that Klingon uses relative clauses
where English uses nouns.</p>
<p><b>romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'</b> is known to be
good. Potential ambiguity: it could be a probe that hunts and
kills Romulans.<br>
<i>Romulan hunter-killer probe</i> is known to be good. Potential
ambiguity: it could be a probe that hunts and kills Romulans.<br>
<b>Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh romuluSngan nejwI'</b> is not known to be
good. Potential ambiguity: none.<br>
<i>hunter-killer Romulan probe</i> seems to be wrong because of
the way English orders adjectives. Potential ambiguity: none.</p>
<p>And can't we resolve the ambiguity in almost exactly the same way
as English?</p>
<p><b>Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' luchenmoHpu'bogh romuluSngan<br>
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej romuluSngan HoHbogh nejwI'<br>
</b></p>
<p>I really don't see the increase in complexity. Yes, you've got to
conjoin those relative clauses with <b>'ej,</b> but in English
you've got to use special punctuation or emphasis to indicate the
special status of the phrase <i>hunter-killer:</i> it's not a
killer of hunters; the words <i>hunter</i> and <i>killer</i> are
given equal status in the phrase.</p>
<p>It's perfectly fine if you have a preference. It's just that your
preference doesn't seem to be borne out in at least one example,
and might be unlikely given the English bias of the creator of
canon. I don't think "removes some ambiguity" is sufficient cause
to go against the grain. But if you wrote<b> quvHa'moHbogh 'ej
QeHmoHbogh verengan qID</b> instead of <b>verengan
quvHa'moHbogh 'ej QeHmoHbogh qID,</b> I wouldn't bat an eyelash.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvmAyd0Kf3TBaM0S6zkDAoii_dmDyQjdyArqjCw6LJC4g@mail.gmail.com">Lately,
I've been thinking a lot about the fact that a lot of Okrand's
Klingon is translated from an English original, how that might
have affected the writing style of canon Klingon, and what other
sorts of less-English writing styles there are. But I don't have
my thoughts together enough to really post about it yet.</blockquote>
<p>Exhibit A: the prefix trick.</p>
<p>Okrand sometimes breaks out of a strictly English way of thinking
with relative clauses. When we first got <i>Klingon for the
Galactic Traveler, </i>we got the phrase <b>SuDbogh Dargh 'ej
wovbogh,</b> and this disturbed a lot of people. It wasn't
completely clear at that time just what the rules were for
conjoining dependent clauses, but even accepting that, most people
wanted to see <b>SuDbogh 'ej wovbogh Dargh.</b> Some actually
declared that they would not be using the new form. But it
actually makes perfect sense, if you remember the rules of Klingon
sentences (which apply to all the verbal clauses): if you're going
to repeat a subject or an object in the second sentence, you can
elide the second instance of that subject or object. That's all
that's happening in <b>SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh:</b> applying
Klingon sentence rules regardless of how one would approach the
phrase in English. And it demonstrates how Klingon doesn't mind
redundancy: it would be perfectly all right to say <b>SuDbogh
Dargh 'ej wovbogh Dargh</b> in the same place, and it's all one
conjoined relative clause.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>