<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/27/2021 4:08 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Looking at your evidence, which I appreciate because I’m
personally very bad at gathering evidence, I expected to see
Okrand doing exactly what you want him to be doing, showing that
an adverbial can be meaningfully translated as applying its
meaning to a noun instead of a verb or a whole sentence.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Meanwhile, when I see this canon example, quite
honestly, I don’t see him doing what you say he’s doing. I see
him doing what I love to do when translating Klingon: He’s
recasting an expression in order to say something that the
grammar of the Klingon language doesn’t support.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course he's doing that. His doing that is exactly what sets up
the context for <b>vabDot</b> that demonstrates my point. If he
weren't doing that, I wouldn't have an example to show you. I
chose that example <i>because</i> he did that.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">The English translation that you present as evidence
that adverbials can point to something other than a verb is a
result of very masterful recasting </div>
</blockquote>
<p>Er, uh, I couldn't go so far as to call it <i>masterful.</i>
It's a good translation. Anyone who translates without doing that
sort of thing probably doesn't produce a good translation.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">of what we would say in a single sentence in English
into a pair of sentences in Klingon because Klingon doesn’t
support applying an adverbial to a noun the way that adverbs can
be applied to nouns in English.</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""><b class="">Qo'noS romuluS je boSuqlaH. vabDot
tera' Qejjbogh DIvI' ram boSuqlaH.</b><i class=""> Kronos,
Romulus, and even the puny Federation's precious Earth
are all up for grabs.</i></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>The literal translation is more like “You can acquire
Kronos and Romulus. You can even acquire Earth, which the
unimportant Federation cherishes."</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>By repeating the first sentence's verb in the second
sentence with a new subject and the adverbial, the grammatical
link between the adverbial and the verb can be implied to
apply to the subject, since that’s the thing that’s different
between the two sentences. When you say you can acquire A and
B, and then you say you can even acquire C, what is different
between “acquiring” and “even acquiring”? Well, C is different
from A and B, obviously.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You're missing the point and looking at it exactly backwards.
Qa'yIn was merely struck by the realization that when translating
Klingon, in which the adverbials <i>must</i> come before the
sentence, you could end up with an adverbial in lots of different
places in the English sentence, including apparently modifying
nouns, even though adverbs are usually said to modify most things
<i>except</i> nouns.</p>
<p>No one is saying anything about Klingon adverbials modifying
nouns; we're just discussing how Klingon adverbials are fixed in
position, while their translated English adverbials can move
around the sentence, and the Klingon adverbials are not locked
into a translation that only puts the English adverbial in front
of the verb or adjective.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>You had suggested that given context, the adverbial could
apply to any non-chuvmey word in the sentence. It could apply
to the subject or object. Like this is a normal thing that
could be done in any Klingon sentence.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I suggested that the meaning expressed by the Klingon
adverbial can be translated into an English adverbial that
modifies the nouns of the sentence instead of the verb.</p>
<p>Dare I say that Klingon is not a code for English, so
word-for-word translations are not required? Klingon adverbials
modifying Klingon sentences need not be translated as English
adverbs modifying English verbs.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>Meanwhile, in the lone sentence {vabDot tera’ Qejbogh DIvI’
ram boSuqlaH}, {vabDot} applies to {boSuqlaH}. It does not
apply to {tera’}.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It applies to the entire sentence. If it applied only to <b>Suq,</b>
then it would mean <i>even acquire</i> (in addition to doing
other things). That's not what the <b>vabDot</b> is doing in the
sentence. It is expressing <i>even Earth</i> (in addition to
those other planets).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>We get the meaning of it applying to {tera’} outside of
Klingon grammar by this recasting device of repetition of the
verb.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes! Out of context, the Klingon <b>vabDot tera' boSuqlaH</b>
can mean <i>You can acquire even Earth (in addition to other
planets), Even you (not just those other guys) can acquire
Earth,</i> or <i>You can even acquire Earth (in addition to all
those other things you can do with Earth).</i> In English, you
can move the <i>even</i> around to be more precise than Klingon
can be, though even English (heh) is not unambiguous. <i>Even you
can acquire Earth</i> can only be the "not just those other
guys" variety, but <i>You can even acquire Earth</i> can be the
"in addition to other planets" variety or the "in addition to all
those other things you can do with Earth" variety.</p>
<p>And you can see clearly the difference in the English if you
stress certain words:</p>
<p><i>You can even acquire EARTH (in addition to other planets).<br>
You can even ACQUIRE Earth (in addition to all the other things
you can do with Earth).</i></p>
<p>Again, just so we're clear, I didn't stress those words because
I'm suggesting that using an adverbial in Klingon involves any
kind of stressed or emphasized element. I'm only stressing them to
show where the focus of the unexpectedness lies.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>Essentially we are making three statements:</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>You can acquire Kronos.</div>
<div>You can acquire Romulus.</div>
<div>You can even acquire Earth.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Two of these acquisitions are identical. One is different,
qualified by {vabDot}. The other two don’t get {vabDot}.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. Because acquiring the EARTH (notice the stress) is
unexpected, while acquiring Kronos or Romulus are not. The focus
is on the difference in the nouns, not the verb.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>So, outside of Klingon grammar, we mark Earth as different
from Kronos and Romulus because the first two just get
acquired, while the third one EVEN gets acquired.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, "outside of Klingon grammar." INSIDE Klingon grammar, we
can't distinguish whether we're noting Earth as different,
acquiring as different, or you as different. We can only tell
through context. This is the <b>qaleghpu' je</b> ambiguity that
TKD discusses.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>You’d have a stronger argument if the example somehow used
context to make the lone sentence mean “You can acquire even
Earth,” but this example doesn’t really go that far. It says,
“You can even acquire Earth.”</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No it doesn't. YOU said that. The example says "Even the puny
Federation's precious Earth."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>Your last paragraph is much more convincing.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>The use of {je} as an adverbial is very exceptional in
Klingon.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>je</b> is not classified as an adverbial by Federation
linguists. They classify it as a conjunction. Klingons only call
it a <b>chuv.</b> Just so we're clear on the terminology and not
taking as evidence things that aren't evidence.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>Step 1: {je} and {‘ej} are both conjunctions, and like
{qoj} and {joq}, one is the other spelled backwards, and one
applies to nouns, following the nouns, but the other applies
to verbs, and precedes the second verb.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Step 2: Take the noun version, and apply it to verbs, but
place it like you would for a noun, after the word it
modifies.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not how you analyze grammar. This is more like
numerology.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>Given how exceptional it is, it also gets exceptionally
ambiguous translation. Is it really modifying the verb, or
could it modify the subject or object as well?</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>In the past, we’ve glossed past this and assumed that the
English ambiguity of “too” applies fully to the Klingon
adverbial {je}.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>NO, NO, NO! We're TOLD how the ambiguity works. <b>qaleghpu' je</b>
can mean <i>I and others saw you</i> (that is, the context is
something like: <b>Duleghpu' chaH; qaleghpu' je</b>), or it can
mean <i>I saw you and others</i> (that is, the context is
something like: <b>chaH vIleghpu'; qaleghpu' je</b>).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">
<div>So, it’s stretching things a bit thinner to take this
uncertainty surrounding {je} and assume it also applies to
{vabDot} and {tlhoS}, and then we should go hunting through
our list of adverbials and see how many others we can assume
might apply to subjects and objects instead of just verbs.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No no no again. Nobody is assuming that Klingon <b>je</b> works
exactly like English <i>too.</i> Where did you get that? We are
working with Klingon <b>je</b> EXACTLY as its described in TKD.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:41D48A27-7FA9-4FEF-AE23-6F8C9EF7FC1B@mac.com">
<div class="">I’m not declaring myself The Voice of Authority
here, declaring that you are all wrong and I’m all right. This
is simply a difference of opinion among people who are unusually
good with the language. You’ve made your case that you think
{vabDot} and possibly other adverbials can generally be used to
apply to verbs or subjects or objects, given sufficient context,</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Wrong. You do not understand what I have said, 'cause that ain't
it.</p>
<p>Adverbials like <b>vabDot</b> don't apply to subject and
objects. They apply to sentences. They are adverbials. Adverbials
go at the front and tell how the activity of the sentence
proceeds. It's not specifically tied to the verb or any other
single piece of the sentence; it's tied to the whole sentence.
That's why it goes in the front.<br>
</p>
<p>There are times when you can figure out which word the adverbial
directly applies to. In sentences like <b>nom yIghoS</b> it's
obviously referring to the verb. But in some sentences, it's not,
as canonical sentences show. So the interpretation of adverbials
is not so cut and dried as saying "adverbials modify the verb."<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>