mu' chu' (pab chu' je) chabal tetlh: filling the gaps (concept)
An hour or so ago, qurgh started the {chabal tetlh} thread for the upcoming qep'a' on Facebook. As FB is not very suitable for long and/or elaborate messages, I decided to summarise my idea here. 1. {mu' chu'} The raw idea is: take the list of 5000 most frequently used English words and see which of them are *really* missing in our knowledge of Klingon. 1.1. Certainly, the first 200 or so are expressed by affixes and other grammar structures, and if any of them are *really* missing, this would belong to {pab chu'}. 1.2. By "*really* missing" I mean that there is no adequate translation (e.g., {'IHchoHmoH} for "suit (verb)", which appears in a sentence in TKD, is adequate, but something back-translated as "propel oneself in water" before {Qal} was revealed is NOT adequate---IMHO). 1.3. Another important aspect is whether we can reasonably expect that a Klingon word exists. Thus, I would exclude "Terran" words where the {banan naH} approach can be used. For example, if I need to say "oak", I would use {"oak" Sor} (there does not have to be a {Qo'noS} plant similar to the oak anyway). 2. {pab chu'} For grammar, I would suggest to take a good English grammar for advanced learners (of English as foreign language), and identify which grammatical structures are missing in our knowledge of Klingon. It is clear that some (or even many) structures do not have exact correspondences ("The ship in which I fled" is a famous example). Qapla' Netzakh
Am 21.03.2017 um 02:40 schrieb Michael Kúnin:
An hour or so ago, qurgh started the {chabal tetlh} thread for the upcoming qep'a' on Facebook. As FB is not very suitable for long and/or elaborate messages, I decided to summarise my idea here.
That's a good idea.
The raw idea is: take the list of 5000 most frequently used English words and see which of them are *really* missing in our knowledge of Klingon.
That's not always true; many beginners seem to be missing words which are just expressed by other ideas, or just do not exist. Note that there still is no english word for "Kindergarten", but it works anyway.
1.2. By "*really* missing" I mean that there is no adequate translation (e.g., {'IHchoHmoH} for "suit (verb)", which appears in a sentence in TKD, is adequate,
Indeed. Beginners (and others) should know that since that was proposed in TKD, Okrand certainly thought about it, and hence it makes not sense asking for a verb like suit. Most of the time, there IS a way to express things, and very often, Okrand refuses to create a new word and instead proposes the use of an existing.
1.3. Another important aspect is whether we can reasonably expect that a Klingon word exists. Thus, I would exclude "Terran" words where the {banan naH} approach can be used. For example, if I need to say "oak", I would use {"oak" Sor} (there does not have to be a {Qo'noS} plant similar to the oak anyway).
Exactly! I recently had to translate the text for a children's show where the main characters are a mouse and an elephant. Okrand agreed that the word {Qa'Hom} for mouse is fine, but Maltz was not aware of an elephant like animal, so he suggested I just say {'e'levan}. [I did not post this to the list as this is not really a new word]
For grammar, I would suggest to take a good English grammar for advanced learners (of English as foreign language), and identify which grammatical structures are missing in our knowledge of Klingon.
And even then, most things can be described somehow. Looking at our own grammar (being english, german or chinese) may be even more confusing than expected. English is very complicated, Klingon is not. Just my two cents to this :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/NewWords
participants (2)
-
Lieven -
Michael Kúnin