How to say *Doctor Who*, *do*, restrictiveness of adjectives and some other short questions
qaStaHvIS jarmey vorgh, poH vItlh vIghajpu'be', 'ach tetlhvam QInmey Daj vIlaDtaH. DaH 'op poH vIghajqa' 'ej jIghel vIneH: 1. Is *vItlh* correct here? 2. Aspect again: Are *vIghajpu'be'* and *vIlaDtaH* in this context correct? If I didn't want to present the action of reading as continuous, could I also have used *vIlaDpu'*? 3. I want *tetlhvam QInmey Daj* to have a non-restrictive meaning, i.e. all messages are interesting and I've read them all. For a restrictive meaning I would have used a relative clause. Is this how it works in Klingon? 4. Can *ghel* take an object, for example: *'op Dochmey vIghel vIneH*? 5. *'op Daq* = *some place*, *'op Daqmey* = *some places*, right? 6. I always forget to ask about it: How do you actually say in Klingon *do* in the sense of *What do you do at weekend* (asking for plans) or *Today I haven't do anything* (just relaxed)? 7. Just out of curiosity: How would you say in Klingon *Doctor Who*? If we suppose that *Qel* could be something like a title and titles come in Klingon after the name, then we could say something like *'Iv Qel*. But then I realised that's an English thing, I mean, using *who* when asking for someone's name if you only know the title or a part of the whole name. In Spanish we use *who* (*quién*) when asking for people, but we use *what* (*qué*) when asking for the name in those situations (*¿El Doctor qué?*). So I just wanted to know if we have some information about who Klingons do that. Thank you!
On 7/22/2022 7:43 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
qaStaHvIS jarmey vorgh, poH vItlh vIghajpu'be', 'ach tetlhvam QInmey Daj vIlaDtaH. DaH 'op poH vIghajqa' 'ej jIghel vIneH:
1. Is *vItlh* correct here?
Yes, although I don't know whether Klingons talk about "having" time. You might instead say *vItlhbe' poH*/the period of time was not a lot./ I'm not saying they don't way *poH ghaj;* just that I don't know if they do.
2. Aspect again: Are *vIghajpu'be'* and *vIlaDtaH* in this context correct? If I didn't want to present the action of reading as continuous, could I also have used *vIlaDpu'*?
I'd use *vIghaj* instead of *vIghajpu'.* You're not saying you performed an act of having and finished it. You're describing your state over a period of time. That calls for no perfective. *vIlaDtaH* is fine here. "Continuous" doesn't necessarily mean the activity occupied every moment over the period of time. *jIlaDtaH* doesn't preclude the possibility of getting up for a snack and then going back to reading, for instance.
3. I want *tetlhvam QInmey Daj* to have a non-restrictive meaning, i.e. all messages are interesting and I've read them all. For a restrictive meaning I would have used a relative clause. Is this how it works in Klingon?
Verbs acting like adjectives can probably be interpreted as restrictive or non-restrictive depending on context. I don't know if anyone has surveyed all canonical examples of verbs acting like adjectives to determine if there is a pattern. This is easy enough to clarify, however. *tetlhvam QInmey vIlaDtaH. Daj.*/I've been reading this list's messages. They were interesting./
4. Can *ghel* take an object, for example: *'op Dochmey vIghel vIneH*?
Yes.
5. *'op Daq* = *some place*, *'op Daqmey* = *some places*, right?
No. *'op Daq* and *'op Daqmey *both mean /unspecified number of places./ I don't believe we've been told that *'op* does the same plural thing that *Hoch* does, and if it did, that's not what they would mean anyway. In English, /some place/ (or /someplace/) means "a place that is not clearly identified," while /some places/ means "unspecified number of places."
6. I always forget to ask about it: How do you actually say in Klingon *do* in the sense of *What do you do at weekend* (asking for plans) or *Today I haven't do anything* (just relaxed)?
You pick a more specific verb. *ta' */accomplish/ is a common one for your examples: *ghInjaj jaj wa' je veb nuq Data'?*/What will you accomplish next Saturday and Sunday?/ *DaHjaj pagh vIta'pu'.* /I haven't accomplished anything today./ But there are other ways to translate /do/ that might be more appropriate in different senses.
7. Just out of curiosity: How would you say in Klingon *Doctor Who*? If we suppose that *Qel* could be something like a title and titles come in Klingon after the name, then we could say something like *'Iv Qel*. But then I realised that's an English thing, I mean, using *who* when asking for someone's name if you only know the title or a part of the whole name. In Spanish we use *who* (*quién*) when asking for people, but we use *what* (*qué*) when asking for the name in those situations (*¿El Doctor qué?*). So I just wanted to know if we have some information about who Klingons do that.
I've often wondered this myself. There are some difficulties here. First, is the word *Qel* really appropriate? The Doctor isn't a physician, which is what I believe the word *Qel* refers to. He has a doctorate, or multiple doctorates. In early stories it was supposed that he had a PhD in everything, while later there is some indication that he (barely) received a doctorate from the Time Lords when he attended the Prydonian academy. Modern /Doctor Who/ plays on the physician idea of the word in the sense that they call him a "doctor of war" — that is, he fixes things when things go bad — but I find this bit of retroactive continuity silly. So I honestly don't think *Qel* is the right word for this. Also, in the world of /Doctor Who,/ the Doctor's name isn't "Doctor Who." His name is never spoken; he is simply known by his title, "Doctor." So there's little point in deciding whether the word *Qel* (or whatever substitute you use) acts as a title or not, because it'll never be attached to anything. In the real world, the title /Doctor Who/ is actually a verbless question: "Doctor Who?" It's a fill-in-the-blank that basically means the same as "What is the Doctor's name?" But the question *'Iv Qel?* means /Who is the Doctor?/ Not quite the same thing. So, unfortunately, translating /Doctor Who/ is a mess. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you for your answers, SuStel!
I'd use vIghaj instead of vIghajpu'. You're not saying you performed an act of having and finished it. You're describing your state over a period of time. That calls for no perfective.
This is again a *Spanish problem*. In Spanish both options are possible, but in this context I wouldn't use the Spanish imperfective tense. Anyway, for what we have discussed in past posts I think I understand your point (actually, I was about to write *vIghajbe'* at the beginning :-)
vIlaDtaH is fine here. "Continuous" doesn't necessarily mean the activity occupied every moment over the period of time. jIlaDtaH doesn't preclude the possibility of getting up for a snack and then going back to reading, for instance.
Yes, I know, I was rather asking if *vIlaDpu'* would be a correct option if I didn't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, and just wanted to speak about the action being completed (I guess this question makes more sense from a Spanish perspective, sorry).
5. *'op Daq* = *some place*, *'op Daqmey* = *some places*, right? No. 'op Daq and 'op Daqmey both mean unspecified number of places. I don't believe we've been told that 'op does the same plural thing that Hoch does, and if it did, that's not what they would mean anyway. In English, some place (or someplace) means "a place that is not clearly identified," while some places means "unspecified number of places."
Ok! I guess *some place* and *somewhere* are both *vogh*? For uncountable nouns the meaning is obviously singular, right? *'op bIQ* = *some water*. But how could we say something like: *Is there any book about Klingon here?* Would you use *'op paq* or simply *paq*?
You pick a more specific verb. ta' accomplish is a common one for your examples: ghInjaj jaj wa' je veb nuq Data'? What will you accomplish next Saturday and Sunday? DaHjaj pagh vIta'pu'. I haven't accomplished anything today. But there are other ways to translate do that might be more appropriate in different senses.
When should I use *DIgh*?
In the real world, the title Doctor Who is actually a verbless question: "Doctor Who?" It's a fill-in-the-blank that basically means the same as "What is the Doctor's name?" But the question 'Iv Qel? means Who is the Doctor? Not quite the same thing. So, unfortunately, translating Doctor Who is a mess.
:-) Ok, but leaving the powerful Time Lords (and Ladies) aside, how would you say e.g. *Captain who?*. Since *'Iv* and *nuq* appear in the same place as the answer, I was thinking about *qIrq HoD* -> *'Iv HoD*. And there my question about which word Klingons would use, *'Iv* as in English or *nuq* as in Spanish. But probably I'm messing things up and I should recast (*What's the captain's name?*). That leads me to another question: When acting as a pronoun in the sense of *to be*, is the position of the question word relevant? Because we have the canon *Dochvam nuq* but also *nuq mI'lIj*. But personal pronouns always come after the noun.
On 7/22/2022 12:20 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
vIlaDtaH is fine here. "Continuous" doesn't necessarily mean the activity occupied every moment over the period of time. jIlaDtaH doesn't preclude the possibility of getting up for a snack and then going back to reading, for instance. Yes, I know, I was rather asking if *vIlaDpu'* would be a correct option if I didn't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, and just wanted to speak about the action being completed (I guess this question makes more sense from a Spanish perspective, sorry).
When we say the perfective means "completed," we don't just mean "no longer happening"; we mean that the action is being looked back upon as a whole action, without referencing /how/ it occurred over time. All we know is that the speaker is establishing a viewpoint on the action from a time after it is over in order to look back on it as a completed whole.
5. *'op Daq* = *some place*, *'op Daqmey* = *some places*, right? No. 'op Daq and 'op Daqmey both mean unspecified number of places. I don't believe we've been told that 'op does the same plural thing that Hoch does, and if it did, that's not what they would mean anyway. In English, some place (or someplace) means "a place that is not clearly identified," while some places means "unspecified number of places." Ok! I guess *some place* and *somewhere* are both *vogh*?
Yes.
For uncountable nouns the meaning is obviously singular, right? *'op bIQ* = *some water*.
I don't know if I'd call that singular or plural since it's an uncountable noun.
But how could we say something like: *Is there any book about Klingon here?* Would you use *'op paq* or simply *paq*?
*naDev tlhIngan Hol bopbogh paq tu'lu''a'?* /Is there a book about Klingon here?/ The /any/ in English is really just used to emphasize the potential that there may actually be no books about Klingon here. I don't think Klingon has a feature that does this.
You pick a more specific verb. ta' accomplish is a common one for your examples: ghInjaj jaj wa' je veb nuq Data'? What will you accomplish next Saturday and Sunday? DaHjaj pagh vIta'pu'. I haven't accomplished anything today. But there are other ways to translate do that might be more appropriate in different senses. When should I use *DIgh*?
When you want to talk about undertakings instead of accomplishments. *wa'leS nuq Data'* asks what you plan to accomplish tomorrow, and the answer will be your intended goal. *wa'leS nuq DaDIgh* asks what you plan to undertake tomorrow, and the answer will be the actions you will perform. There is not a single way to translate English /do/ here. How you translate it depends on what you mean.
In the real world, the title Doctor Who is actually a verbless question: "Doctor Who?" It's a fill-in-the-blank that basically means the same as "What is the Doctor's name?" But the question 'Iv Qel? means Who is the Doctor? Not quite the same thing. So, unfortunately, translating Doctor Who is a mess. :-) Ok, but leaving the powerful Time Lords (and Ladies) aside, how would you say e.g. *Captain who?*. Since *'Iv* and *nuq* appear in the same place as the answer, I was thinking about *qIrq HoD* -> *'Iv HoD*. And there my question about which word Klingons would use, *'Iv* as in English or *nuq* as in Spanish. But probably I'm messing things up and I should recast (*What's the captain's name?*).
I think you need to recast. That is, maybe Klingons will stick an *'Iv* in for the captain's name to ask *'Iv HoD*/Captain who?,/ but I tend to think not, since this also means /Who is the captain?/ In English you can also say /Captain what?/ for the same thing, but likewise the Klingon *nuq HoD* is a sentence meaning /What is the captain?,/ so it may not work.
That leads me to another question: When acting as a pronoun in the sense of *to be*, is the position of the question word relevant? Because we have the canon *Dochvam nuq* but also *nuq mI'lIj*. But personal pronouns always come after the noun. I don't think it matters as far as any canonical explanation we've been given. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal pronouns always come after the noun."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Yes, I know, I was rather asking if *vIlaDpu'* would be a correct option if I didn't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, and just wanted to speak about the action being completed (I guess this question makes more sense from a Spanish perspective, sorry). When we say the perfective means "completed," we don't just mean "no longer happening"; we mean that the action is being looked back upon as a whole action, without referencing how it occurred over time. All we know is that the speaker is establishing a viewpoint on the action from a time after it is over in order to look back on it as a completed whole.
Yes, sorry, maybe I didn't express myself correctly in English. My question is: *'ach tetlhvam QInmey Daj vIlaDpu'* is also possible if I don't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, but rather present it as a completed whole, isn't it? I mean, it's not wrong in this context.
For uncountable nouns the meaning is obviously singular, right? *'op bIQ* = *some water*. I don't know if I'd call that singular or plural since it's an uncountable noun.
That's a good point. But *'op bIQ* is anyway grammatical and translates into *some water*, right?
That leads me to another question: When acting as a pronoun in the sense of *to be*, is the position of the question word relevant? Because we have the canon *Dochvam nuq* but also *nuq mI'lIj*. But personal pronouns always come after the noun. I don't think it matters as far as any canonical explanation we've been given. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal pronouns always come after the noun."
I mean, in the sense of *to be* the pronoun always follows the noun: *mI'lIj 'oH* (*It's your number*). You cannot say *'oH mI'lIj* for *It's your number*. So I was wondering why the canonical example says *nuq mI'lIj* and not *mI'lIj nuq*, since we have been told that these question words work like pronouns in questions with *to be* in the English translations. Or am I missing something?
On 7/22/2022 1:13 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
Yes, I know, I was rather asking if *vIlaDpu'* would be a correct option if I didn't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, and just wanted to speak about the action being completed (I guess this question makes more sense from a Spanish perspective, sorry). When we say the perfective means "completed," we don't just mean "no longer happening"; we mean that the action is being looked back upon as a whole action, without referencing how it occurred over time. All we know is that the speaker is establishing a viewpoint on the action from a time after it is over in order to look back on it as a completed whole. Yes, sorry, maybe I didn't express myself correctly in English. My question is: *'ach tetlhvam QInmey Daj vIlaDpu'* is also possible if I don't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, but rather present it as a completed whole, isn't it? I mean, it's not wrong in this context.
It sets up a different viewpoint, yes. If you say *vIlaDtaH,* you're putting your listener in the middle of those previous months. If you say *vIlaDpu',* you're putting your listener /after/ those months, looking back on them. I don't know that I would call this emphasis. In this case it doesn't matter too much which you use, because your next sentence establishes an entirely new time context with *DaH,* so the previous time context of the previous months and the previous viewpoint go out the window.
For uncountable nouns the meaning is obviously singular, right? *'op bIQ* = *some water*. I don't know if I'd call that singular or plural since it's an uncountable noun. That's a good point. But *'op bIQ* is anyway grammatical and translates into *some water*, right?
Yes, I believe we can use *'op* with uncountable nouns.
That leads me to another question: When acting as a pronoun in the sense of *to be*, is the position of the question word relevant? Because we have the canon *Dochvam nuq* but also *nuq mI'lIj*. But personal pronouns always come after the noun. I don't think it matters as far as any canonical explanation we've been given. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal pronouns always come after the noun." I mean, in the sense of *to be* the pronoun always follows the noun: *mI'lIj 'oH* (*It's your number*). You cannot say *'oH mI'lIj* for *It's your number*. So I was wondering why the canonical example says *nuq mI'lIj* and not *mI'lIj nuq*, since we have been told that these question words work like pronouns in questions with *to be* in the English translations. Or am I missing something?
It's hard to tell whether something is Clipped Klingon or not. I'm afraid I cannot answer your question definitively. I do not know that *Dochvam nuq* is substituting for *Dochvam 'oH* or if *nuq* is acting like a verb in its own right here. Or if it's Clipped Klingon for *Dochvam 'oH nuq'e'* (there are some canonical examples of this). I do not know whether *nuq mI'lIj* is Clipped Klingon for *nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'.* All I can tell you is that we've seen it both ways, and so far as I know we don't have enough information to confidently analyze the grammar. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
It's hard to tell whether something is Clipped Klingon or not. I'm afraid I cannot answer your question definitively. I do not know that Dochvam nuq is substituting for Dochvam 'oH or if nuq is acting like a verb in its own right here. Or if it's Clipped Klingon for Dochvam 'oH nuq'e' (there are some canonical examples of this). I do not know whether nuq mI'lIj is Clipped Klingon for nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'. All I can tell you is that we've seen it both ways, and so far as I know we don't have enough information to confidently analyze the grammar.
Just to be sure I understand: If I want to ask *What is a tricorder?*, I could say *Hoqra' nuq?*, *nuq Hoqra'?*, *nuq 'oH Hoqra''e'?* or *Hoqra' 'oH nuq'e'?*, all of them being correct and with the same meaning?
On 7/22/2022 5:26 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
Just to be sure I understand: If I want to ask *What is a tricorder?*, I could say *Hoqra' nuq?*, *nuq Hoqra'?*, *nuq 'oH Hoqra''e'?* or *Hoqra' 'oH nuq'e'?*, all of them being correct and with the same meaning?
Yes. There might be differences in emphasis, but if there are, they haven't been made clear to us. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Just to be sure I understand: If I want to ask *What is a tricorder?*, I could say *Hoqra' nuq?*, *nuq Hoqra'?*, *nuq 'oH Hoqra''e'?* or *Hoqra' 'oH nuq'e'?*, all of them being correct and with the same meaning?
Yes. There might be differences in emphasis, but if there are, they haven't been made clear to us.
Ok. Thank you very much!
participants (2)
-
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
SuStel