pronoun to use for mixed groups still an open question
There was a question about which pronoun {bIH} or {chaH} to use when referring to a mixed group containing both beings capable of language and other things. The question is still unresolved. TKD (p. 51) says: <The pronoun {chaH} "they" is used when it refers to a group of beings capable of using language; otherwise, {bIH} "they" is used.> In the 1st edition of the paq'batlh, there were two places where a pronoun referred to a mixed group. One of these ({wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je}) has been changed entirely. There's a second passage in which {chaH} apparently refers to a mixed group, which survived with some changes. Anticipating that readers might draw the wrong conclusion, Dr. Okrand offered an analysis of the passage. (His reference to "the earlier version" is a draft in which {chaH} was replaced with {Hoch}, which he later decided against.) The text: {Hoch tuqmey / Hoch puq poHmey / Hoch loDpu' be'pu' je / HarghmeH yeq chaH / molor HI''a' luSuv / lughIjlu'be' 'ej pujHa' 'e' lu'aghmeH Suv} "All tribes, / All ages, / All sexes, / United to do battle together! / Against the tyrant Molor! / Against fear and against weakness!" MO's comments: Clearly the subject of {Suv} in lines 5 and 6 (and the subject of {'agh} in line 6) are Kahless's warriors. The way the poetry works (and it's poetry, not standard prose) can be, I think, broken up into three bits: (1) A shout-out chant to all the tribes, ages, and sexes. What's coming involves everyone! No one is left out! (2) They unite to do battle! "They" and {chaH} here refer to the battlers (Kahless's warriors, including both men and women according to the Klingon text), not to tribes/ages. Tribes don't fight. Ages don't fight. People (warriors) do. (Even in the earlier version {Hoch} meant "everyone" — all the fighters — not "everything," though the Klingon word {Hoch} itself doesn't make that distinction.) (3) They battle Molor! They battle to show they're not afraid or weak! The unspoken "they" in the English and the unspoken {chaH} in the Klingon, again, refer to the warriors. All of this, of course, sheds no light on which third-person plural pronoun to use when referring to mixed groups. Looking at it now, I see the short description of {chaH} and {bIH} in TKD can be read in a couple of different ways regarding mixed groups. It doesn't address clearly how to handle this situation. (end of message) What Dr. Okrand is saying here is that the {chaH} in line 4 doesn't refer to everyone/everything listed in lines 1-3. Of course, Klingon can do metonymy and synecdoche, so something like the above can occur outside of poetry, too. It's like when you write in English, "The family went shopping. They bought..." (The pronoun for "family" is "it", but "they" refers to the members of the family.) -- De'vID
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 03:11, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
{Hoch tuqmey / Hoch puq poHmey / Hoch loDpu' be'pu' je / HarghmeH yeq chaH / molor HI''a' luSuv / lughIjlu'be' 'ej pujHa' 'e' lu'aghmeH Suv} "All tribes, / All ages, / All sexes, / United to do battle together! / Against the tyrant Molor! / Against fear and against weakness!"
Clarification: {puj} is still a valid noun. {puj} being a noun was not an error. Someone noticed the fact that the original verse in the 1st edition was our only source of the noun {puj} "weakness". The lines were revised because Dr. Okrand was dissatisfied with the interpretation the Klingon translation imposed on the English, which could be interpreted in other ways. A discussion with the editors clarified that the intended meaning of "battling against fear and weakness" is "battling to demonstrate that they’re not fearful and weak", and the Klingon version was revised accordingly. The removal of the only example of {puj} as a noun was incidental. I guess when the paq'batlh 2ed comes out, there'll be a bunch of questions about whether lines which were revised means that the original lines in the 1st edition were errors. I think, for the most part, it should be obvious. There might be some grousing about the canonicity of 1st edition lines which were removed or revised, as I suppose the revision means their official removal from canon. (Or I guess they have the status of "canonically revised/removed", and when they are cited it should be along with the revision. Some were very clearly "canonical errors".) Some of these lines may have been our only examples of certain constructions or word usages, but I think it should be clear whether the lines were revised because they broke grammatical rules or contained errors, or whether (as in the case of {puj}) the edit was incidental to the noun/verb in consideration. -- De'vID
participants (1)
-
De'vID