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