'op jajmey.. qaStaHvIS 'op jajmey, QapHa'law' Hoch. ghe''or jaH yInlIj Hoch; 'e' DaHar, qaStaHvIS 'op jajmey.. qaStaHvIS 'op jajmey bItulchoHlaHbe', DejchoHlaw'mo' DI'rujlIj. bItulchoHlaHbe', ngabchoHlaw'mo' Hoch vangmeH wIvmeylIj. mo'Daq Ha'DIbaH vonlu'pu'; Ha'DIbaHvam Darur 'e' DaHar, qaStaHvIS 'op jajmey. nItapmeH, nIcholchoHtaH DI'ruj tlhoy'mey e' DaHar, qaStaHvIS 'op jajmey SoHvaD, tera'vamDaq qaSchoH ghe''or.. 'e' DaHar, qaStaHvIS 'op jajmey. ngugh bIQIlchoH.. 'ej ngugh QobchoH ghu'.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
QaQbe'law'mo' yInlIj qavup, 'a 'oy'lIj SIQbe' 'u'. HochvaD bIbepQo'. QaQ yInwIj'e'. jIHvaD bIbep 'e' yImev. When you translate the “impersonal you” literally, Klingon grammar makes it seem that you are accusing the reader of doing something. It comes across as projection. Please stop. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Feb 14, 2020, at 8:10 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
'op jajmey..
ghunchu'wI'
When you translate the “impersonal you” literally, Klingon grammar makes it seem that you are accusing the reader of doing something.
Is this based on Ca'Non, or is it just your personal interpretation/perception ? Because, I don't feel it functioning the way you suggest it does. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 2/14/2020 10:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
ghunchu'wI'
When you translate the “impersonal you” literally, Klingon grammar makes it seem that you are accusing the reader of doing something.
Is this based on Ca'Non, or is it just your personal interpretation/perception ?
Because, I don't feel it functioning the way you suggest it does.
There is evidence of using the second person as a sort of impersonal in Klingon. For example, *pIpyuS pach DaSop DaneHchugh pIpyuS puS DaghornIS*/If you want to eat pipius claw, you'll have to break a few pipiuses./ (TKW) While this COULD be justified by saying "Nonono, I'm specifically telling you, my listener, that YOU need to break a few pipiuses," I'm feel confident that this isn't what was intended. It's a proverb, meant impersonally. We're even given the more person version, which is phrased as an imperative. However, I agree with ghunchu'wI' that you're overdoing it. You're not just using the occasional second-person reference in a way that would let the reader personalize it to themselves. You're strongly calling out *SoH* as the main viewpoint of the piece, telling them what they're doing and thinking. If your text isn't meant to be directed to a specific *SoH* (even if that *SoH* is the reader of the text), but is instead about a general state of things, you should express it that way in the Klingon. Indefinite subject helps a lot, though don't overdo that either. You can just leave out all the second-person references. You can talk about *nuv*/a person/ or *vay'* /someone /instead of *SoH*/you./ For example, you don't need to say *ghe''or jaH yInlIj Hoch*/Your whole life goes to Gre'thor/ when you can say *ghe''or jaH yIn*/Life goes to Gre'thor./ (I'm not sure I would translate that idiom literally, by the way.) On a completely different subject, and I hope you don't mind the criticism, it would help readability if you grouped your sentences in thematically related paragraphs. Come up with a topic sentence for a paragraph, then expand with supporting sentences. When you want to describe a new topic, begin a new paragraph. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I hope you don't mind the criticism
By all means ! Not only do I not mind, but I encourage it. Unless someone is being corrected, how can he ever hope to improve ? SuStel:
it would help readability if you grouped your sentences in thematically related paragraphs
hmm.. Only now that you mentioned it, I realized that I tend to change line often, after a sentence/sentences. Of course you're right. Indeed it can be confusing, so I'll keep that in mind. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
SuStel:
However, I agree with ghunchu'wI' that you're overdoing it. You're not just using the occasional second-person reference in a way that would let the reader personalize it to themselves. You're strongly calling out SoH as the main viewpoint of the piece, telling them what they're doing and thinking.
Unfortunately, I'll have to disagree on this one. This is a matter of personal preference, and a matter of how someone chooses to process what he reads, and how he chooses to relate to the words his eyes are actually reading. The original post, was inspired from a scene from the third season of Narcos. That scene, used the second person impersonal "you", and in my opinion, writing something inspired from that scene in klingon, sounds better using second person, than using {vay'} or {-lu'}. It's upon the person writing, to make the choices he sees fit, to adequately express the intended meaning. Now, I'm not directing this to you, don't misunderstand me, but if someone can't understand, what actually concerns him, and what doesn't, then perhaps it would be preferable to just press "delete". ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 2/17/2020 9:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
It's upon the person writing, to make the choices he sees fit, to adequately express the intended meaning.
It's also upon the person writing to take into account the sensibilities and conventions of his or her audience. You can come up with a writing style that you think is wonderful, but if your audience doesn't agree with you about that then you've failed as a writer. It's unclear to what extent Klingon has an impersonal second person, so our advice is just suggestions, not imperatives. You are free to do what you like, but I think you're neglecting some of the better tools in the Klingon toolkit by insisting on an impersonal second person. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
It's also upon the person writing to take into account the sensibilities and conventions of his or her audience.
True, but since there are several thousand people learning klingon, I doubt anyone can speak in their name, as if he'd asked them all. SuStel:
You can come up with a writing style that you think is wonderful, but if your audience doesn't agree with you about that then you've failed as a writer.
.. But I'm not a klingon writer, nor do I aspire to become one. Anyway, it's not my intention to argue. Lets just agree to disagree on this one. But here's some food for thought.. Suppose okrand is asked, and replies by saying that klingon doesn't have an impersonal second person "you". (And I believe that probably this would be his answer..) And then someone triumphantly says: "see ? you can't use it".. maj.. I wonder.. Why would the same person, who in that scenario would call me out not to use the impersonal second person "you", wouldn't object too to people saying things like: {DaHjaj, vavnI'wI' yotlhDaq vIghro' vIleghpu'} for "today, at my grandfather's field I saw a cat". Okrand never said that {vIghro'} means "terran cat". People use it though, and noone says to the person using it: "I can't understand what you're saying; is your grandfather a klingon on kronos ? Because only there one could actually see a vIghro'.." Rules are rules, and the understanding of a person must be the same throughout. If people insist, that one can't use an impersonal second person, then I'd expect these same people to call out everyone using the name of an animal without applying {tera'} before it, or the name of a fruit, or anything similar. As I wrote earlier, the reader needs to possess some basic discernment skills. If he lacks them, then I'd ask him whenever he sees a klingon post from me, to just press "delete" and save me the drama of having to explain the obvious. Because one can't say that he misunderstands the impersonal second person "you" as being personal, while at the same time he doesn't misunderstand a {vIghro'} used on its own. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 2/18/2020 7:55 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
It's also upon the person writing to take into account the sensibilities and conventions of his or her audience. True, but since there are several thousand people learning klingon, I doubt anyone can speak in their name, as if he'd asked them all.
That's what conventions are for. They are guidelines agreed upon by general consensus as the best way of doing something. You aren't forced to follow conventions, but by definition they are what a majority of people will be expecting.
SuStel:
You can come up with a writing style that you think is wonderful, but if your audience doesn't agree with you about that then you've failed as a writer. .. But I'm not a klingon writer, nor do I aspire to become one.
Yes you are. Every sentence you write makes you a writer. I don't mean "author of a published and printed work"; I just mean writer.
Suppose okrand is asked, and replies by saying that klingon doesn't have an impersonal second person "you". (And I believe that probably this would be his answer..)
I don't think he would jump to this answer, since there is evidence of an impersonal you in his Klingon.
And then someone triumphantly says: "see ? you can't use it".. maj..
I wonder.. Why would the same person, who in that scenario would call me out not to use the impersonal second person "you", wouldn't object too to people saying things like:
{DaHjaj, vavnI'wI' yotlhDaq vIghro' vIleghpu'} for "today, at my grandfather's field I saw a cat".
Okrand never said that {vIghro'} means "terran cat". People use it though, and noone says to the person using it: "I can't understand what you're saying; is your grandfather a klingon on kronos ? Because only there one could actually see a vIghro'.."
Rules are rules,
No. When it comes to languages, rules are not rules. Rules are descriptions. If Okrand were to say "Klingon does not permit an impersonal you," then we could point out someone trying to use an impersonal you and tell them they're wrong. But what that means is that person's use of Klingon contradicts the description of Klingon we've been given. When someone uses *vIghro'* to refer to a Terran cat, they're doing two things. First, they're following the longstanding Star Trek convention of using a word for one type of animal to describe a similar-looking alien animal. A bat is an Earth order. Bajoran bats are mentioned in Star Trek, but they're not related to bats. Eels are an Earth order, but the Ceti eel is not related to eels. Cardassian voles are not voles. Rigellian oxen are not oxen. Alvanian cave sloths are not sloths. Likewise, *tera' vIghro'* are not *vIghro'.* It's the same Star Trek game. Second, they're not contradicting the description of the *vIghro'* as a cat-like creature; they're adopting the word as a close substitute for a native Terran word. No one is suggesting that the *vIghro'* is found on Earth. If you want to be the guy who says "Well, technically, the *vIghro'* is found on Kronos, not Earth," people are just going to roll their eyes around you. Yes, everyone knows that. A Klingon looking at a cat might think it looks like a *vIghro',* so I'll just call it a *vIghro'* whether that's technically correct or not. A more precise Klingon might look at a cat and insist on using the Federation Standard word /cat./
As I wrote earlier, the reader needs to possess some basic discernment skills. If he lacks them, then I'd ask him whenever he sees a klingon post from me, to just press "delete" and save me the drama of having to explain the obvious.
Because one can't say that he misunderstands the impersonal second person "you" as being personal, while at the same time he doesn't misunderstand a {vIghro'} used on its own.
No one is saying they don't understand you. We're saying that you may not be using the best tools to express yourself. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Consider that the Klingon {-lu’} and the pronoun {vay’} have proportionally high usage in Klingon canon compared to any use of a generic “you” (using {Da-} or such), and English sounds awkward when we try to talk about the generic “one” doing things, or if we overuse the passive voice, which isn’t the same as {-lu’}, but for translation purposes, it often works as an alternative to making the subject the generic “one”. Basically, as English speakers, we are biased against the laziest translations of {-lu’} and {vay’} and biased toward the generic “you”. It’s not a bias that gracefully carries over to Klingon. I agree with SuStel and ghunchu’wI’ on this, and I’ll point out that whenever SuStel and ghunchu’wI’ agree on something, that’s usually worth paying attention to. I don’t think it’s just a matter of personal style. I think that if you lean in too hard on the use of the generic “you”, there’s something about the language and its conventions that you aren’t paying attention to. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 18, 2020, at 9:15 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/18/2020 7:55 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
It's also upon the person writing to take into account the sensibilities and conventions of his or her audience. True, but since there are several thousand people learning klingon, I doubt anyone can speak in their name, as if he'd asked them all. That's what conventions are for. They are guidelines agreed upon by general consensus as the best way of doing something. You aren't forced to follow conventions, but by definition they are what a majority of people will be expecting.
SuStel:
You can come up with a writing style that you think is wonderful, but if your audience doesn't agree with you about that then you've failed as a writer. .. But I'm not a klingon writer, nor do I aspire to become one. Yes you are. Every sentence you write makes you a writer. I don't mean "author of a published and printed work"; I just mean writer.
Suppose okrand is asked, and replies by saying that klingon doesn't have an impersonal second person "you". (And I believe that probably this would be his answer..) I don't think he would jump to this answer, since there is evidence of an impersonal you in his Klingon.
And then someone triumphantly says: "see ? you can't use it".. maj..
I wonder.. Why would the same person, who in that scenario would call me out not to use the impersonal second person "you", wouldn't object too to people saying things like:
{DaHjaj, vavnI'wI' yotlhDaq vIghro' vIleghpu'} for "today, at my grandfather's field I saw a cat".
Okrand never said that {vIghro'} means "terran cat". People use it though, and noone says to the person using it: "I can't understand what you're saying; is your grandfather a klingon on kronos ? Because only there one could actually see a vIghro'.."
Rules are rules, No. When it comes to languages, rules are not rules. Rules are descriptions.
If Okrand were to say "Klingon does not permit an impersonal you," then we could point out someone trying to use an impersonal you and tell them they're wrong. But what that means is that person's use of Klingon contradicts the description of Klingon we've been given.
When someone uses vIghro' to refer to a Terran cat, they're doing two things. First, they're following the longstanding Star Trek convention of using a word for one type of animal to describe a similar-looking alien animal. A bat is an Earth order. Bajoran bats are mentioned in Star Trek, but they're not related to bats. Eels are an Earth order, but the Ceti eel is not related to eels. Cardassian voles are not voles. Rigellian oxen are not oxen. Alvanian cave sloths are not sloths. Likewise, tera' vIghro' are not vIghro'. It's the same Star Trek game.
Second, they're not contradicting the description of the vIghro' as a cat-like creature; they're adopting the word as a close substitute for a native Terran word. No one is suggesting that the vIghro' is found on Earth. If you want to be the guy who says "Well, technically, the vIghro' is found on Kronos, not Earth," people are just going to roll their eyes around you. Yes, everyone knows that. A Klingon looking at a cat might think it looks like a vIghro', so I'll just call it a vIghro' whether that's technically correct or not. A more precise Klingon might look at a cat and insist on using the Federation Standard word cat.
As I wrote earlier, the reader needs to possess some basic discernment skills. If he lacks them, then I'd ask him whenever he sees a klingon post from me, to just press "delete" and save me the drama of having to explain the obvious.
Because one can't say that he misunderstands the impersonal second person "you" as being personal, while at the same time he doesn't misunderstand a {vIghro'} used on its own. No one is saying they don't understand you. We're saying that you may not be using the best tools to express yourself.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
fse: charghwI', I've read carefully your comments, as I always do, but for the reasons I already mentioned I have to disagree. I know that you and SuStel try in good will to explain this matter, and I thank you for that, but it's something we obviously disagree on. And it's ok, since we can't always agree on everything, right ? However, there's another angle to this matter, which some people (and by some people I don't mean you and SuStel) have to bear in mind. Speaking for myself, there are times when I write in second person singular, because I feel it to be better, for the meaning I want to convey. There are times I may use the first person plural for the same reason, or there are times when I'll use the first person plural to practice a different set of prefixes. I'd appreciate, if someone can't understand who a message concerns to simply ask, before choosing to reply in an insulting, judgemental, and derrogatory manner, as has happened earlier in this thread. And for the last time I will remind for anyone needing it, that there is a beautiful button named "delete". One can press it, and set his mind at ease.. Noone forces anyone, to read anything.. tlh: charghwI', ngoDmey DaDelta'bogh vIlaDpu', 'ej vIlaDtaHvIS jIyeppu'. 'ach, 'op meqmeymo' - meqmey vIDelta'bogh.. - jIQochnIS. tuQaHmeH SoH SuStel je, jIHvaD SuQIj 'e' bonID. 'e' vItlhoj, 'ej Satlho', 'ach maQochba', 'ej qay'be'.. reH maQochbe'; qItbe', qar'a' ? 'a Sojvam'e', latlh vay' luqelnIS 'op nuvpu' ('ej {'op nuvpu'} jIjatlhtaHvIS, SoH SuStel je vIDelbe'..). jIH mubop mu'mey veb: vay' vIDelmeH jIghItlhtaHvIS, rut {bI-} moHaq vIlo', qaq wIvvam 'e' vIHarmo'. chaq, rut ngoQvam rapmo' {ma-} moHaq vIlo', 'ej chaq latlh moHaqmey vIqeqmeH, {ma-} moHaq vIlo'. nuv(pu')'e' bopbogh wa' QInwIj Sovbe'chugh vay', 'ej ngoQwIj tlhojlaHbe'chugh, vaj jangchoHpa' nuvvam, mutIchchoHpa', munuSchoHpa', 'ej mumawchoHpa', mughelchugh vaj qaq. 'ej tagha', ngoD veb qawnISchugh vay', vaj wa'logh vay'vamvaD ngoDvam vIqawqa'moH, 'ach ghaytan ghIq ngoDvam vIqawqa'moHbe'. leQ 'IH tu'lu'.. leQvamvaD {QIn yIQaw'chu'} ponglu'. leQvam 'uyDI' nuv, vaj SIbI' ngab Hoch ghu'meyDaj qay'.. vay' laD nuv; nuvvam raD pagh.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin