[was Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS] De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 27. Feb. 2019, 18:25:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 15:47, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I get the feeling, from Okrand's translations as well as the text in TKD, that the second sentence of a sentence-as-object is supposed to be a fairly lightweight thing, not meant to carry the bulk of the meaning: "[*'e'* and *net*] are used primarily, though not exclusively, with verbs of thinking or observation (such as *know, see*)." When we go far afield from that, we strain the ability of the language to deliver the intended meaning.
I also get the feeling that {'e'} is overused (though {net} is perhaps underused). Often, when I see a sentence on this mailing list written with {'e'}, I think that Okrand would've written it as two grammatically unconnected sentences.
This is something that Okrand does frequently enough, and which other people writing Klingon (almost) never do, that I think it's worth pointing out. Maybe we should be following Okrand's example and writing pairs of sentences with fewer {'ej}s and {'e'} between them, and just let the context indicate that the sentences are "connected".
From Power Klingon: {'uSDaj chop! chev!} "Bite his/her leg off!" {targhlIj yIngagh! yIruch!} "Go mate with your targ!"
The first is a pet command, and is obviously clipped. But still, it doesn't seem like anything was dropped which would've grammatically connected {chev} to {chop}. I think if one of us had been asked to translate "bite someone's leg off", we'd have likely gone with {'uSDaj chevmeH chop} or something like that. As for the second sentence, again, based on the Klingon sentences written on this mailing list, I think most people would've written {targhlIj Dangagh 'e' yIruch!} Okrand has said in interviews that often, when he's asked to translate something, the number of sentences in the Klingon translation doesn't match the number in the English. A good example of this is the last line of the anthem: "We battle forever, battling on through the Eternal fight." {reH maSuvtaHqu'. mamevQo'. maSuvtaH. ma'ov.} Another example, from Star Trek V: {yISo'Ha'rup, yIghuS.} "Stand by to de-cloak for firing." Again, this could've been {bIghuSmeH yISo'Ha'rup!} but it's two separate sentences instead. Recently, there was this: {chorgh 'uj(mey) lID SuvwI'; ron} "the warrior rolled (haphazardly) for eight ujes" Again, there's no {lIDmeH} or {rontaHvIS}. It's just {lID}, {ron}. This one was my example, but it's based on Okrand's description of how {lol} and {much} work together and he approved it: {lol SuvwI'; mI'loD much} There's also this, which is joined with {'ej}: {qaS qepHom 'ej jIjeS.} I bring up this example because, for many years, people on the mailing list tried to put the event as the object of {jeS} (as in *{qepHom vIjeS}) or marked it with {-vaD} (like *{qepHomvaD jIjeS}). But it turns out that you can just state that something is happening, and that you participate, and the context is what determines that you're participating in the thing that's happening. I think you should also be able to just say {qaS qepHom; jIjeS} and be understood. (You could also say {qaStaHvIS qepHom jIjeS}, which has a slightly different emphasis. But my point is that the second sentence/verb doesn't necessarily have to explicitly refer to the object or topic of the first, or even be grammatically joined to it.) I think that very often, people use {'e'} or {-meH} or {-taHvIS} to join Klingon sentences into one which would be expressed using a single sentence in English, but there's no reason the Klingon translation doesn't just use multiple grammatically independent sentences. -- De'vID