We know we can say: {bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'} the sword is in the ocean There is no real ocean, but we use the {-Daq} on the {bIQ'a'} neverthless. Likewise, if we wrote: {'Internet DaqDaq De' law' tu'lu'} at the location of the internet, there's a lot of information Would the above be acceptable ? ~nIghma'
On 10/22/2017 10:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
We know we can say:
{bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'} the sword is in the ocean
There is no real ocean, but we use the {-Daq} on the {bIQ'a'} neverthless.
Likewise, if we wrote:
{'Internet DaqDaq De' law' tu'lu'} at the location of the internet, there's a lot of information
Would the above be acceptable ?
*bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'* is not a metaphor; it is an idiom. A metaphor is an expression that describes one thing as a different thing; an idiom is an expression that means something other than what it literally says. When a Klingon says *bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e',* he is not saying that anything is a sword or ocean; he is merely referencing a story about Kahless to mean /something has ended./ There is no reason why you can't use *-Daq* in a metaphor. The limits on *-Daq* are that it must describe a spatial relationship. If a metaphor includes a spatial relationship, then *-Daq* is appropriate. If you're /standing on the shoulders of giants,/ that's a metaphor that includes an actual spatial relationship, so go ahead and say *tInqu'wI' volchaHDaq QamtaH.* So what about /on the Internet?/ This gets a little more complicated, because so much of our computer terminology is built out of metaphors that we get so used to they cease to be mere metaphors and become the normal jargon. We casually toss out metaphors like /window, file, trash, clipboard, paste, open, /and /desktop/ to the point that we don't even realize anymore that they are metaphors. We intuitively click on the image of a floppy disk to save a file even though we haven't used floppy disks to save files for years and years. So when considering whether /on the Internet/ is a metaphor, keep in mind that computer jargon is built on metaphor, but may not be metaphor anymore. We think of the Internet as a "place" with "sites" and "pages" and "forums" that we "go to," so why couldn't something be "in" or "on" the Internet? It's in keeping with the metaphor. So go ahead and maintain that metaphor, with the understanding that we're biased by our jargon for these things. Since the Internet is a specifically Human invention, Klingons talking about it will probably just adopt our metaphor—unless they have or had something of their own that's comparable. But since their word for Internet is *'Internet,* I find that unlikely. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.10.2017 um 16:45 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
{bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'} the sword is in the ocean
There is no real ocean, but we use the {-Daq} on the {bIQ'a'} neverthless.
In the phrase itself, the ocean *is* a real thing, so using -Daq here is not metaphorically. I think it's surely okay to use {-Daq} for a thing like the internet, and also on TV, having music in/on a CD, and any of the virtual places we talk about. I didn't find any real virtual locatives in canon examples, but maybe this works: {wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap} "We succeed together in a greater whole" This is one of the situations where I would say that we do not know for sure, but if it works, everyone understands and it does not break any known rules, then go ahead and use it that way. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type5NounSuffixes
Perhaps the {'Internet} example wasn't appropriate, because the {'Internet} more or less tends to be considered as a "place", so let me write another example. Suppose I want to express "molor sits on his pride". I can't write {le'yo'DajDaq ba' molor} because {le'yo'} can't take the {-Daq}. But if I write: {le'yo' quS'a'Daq ba' molor} molor sits on his throne of pride Would it be correct ? ~nIghma' On Oct 22, 2017 18:30, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 22.10.2017 um 16:45 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
{bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'} the sword is in the ocean
There is no real ocean, but we use the {-Daq} on the {bIQ'a'} neverthless.
In the phrase itself, the ocean *is* a real thing, so using -Daq here is not metaphorically.
I think it's surely okay to use {-Daq} for a thing like the internet, and also on TV, having music in/on a CD, and any of the virtual places we talk about.
I didn't find any real virtual locatives in canon examples, but maybe this works:
{wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap} "We succeed together in a greater whole"
This is one of the situations where I would say that we do not know for sure, but if it works, everyone understands and it does not break any known rules, then go ahead and use it that way.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type5NounSuffixes _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/23/2017 7:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Perhaps the {'Internet} example wasn't appropriate, because the {'Internet} more or less tends to be considered as a "place", so let me write another example.
Suppose I want to express "molor sits on his pride". I can't write {le'yo'DajDaq ba' molor} because {le'yo'} can't take the {-Daq}.
But if I write:
{le'yo' quS'a'Daq ba' molor} molor sits on his throne of pride
Would it be correct ?
If /Molor sits on his pride/ is somehow established as a metaphor before that sentence appears, then you /can/ say *le'yo'DajDaq ba' molor.* But that's down to your ability to set me up to understand a metaphor, not whether the language allows non-literal entities to be locatives. Anything you can *ba'* on is a locative. If I can *ba'* on *le'yo'* in some unusual expression, then that's a locative. When we tell people to use *-Daq* only on spatial relationships, we're warning them not to use it for other relationships expressed by English /o//n, at, /or /in,/ not that metaphors can't express spatial relationships. If a beginner wants to translate /I ate lunch at noon,/ we might have to warn them that *DungluQDaq* is the wrong concept. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Originally there was a "real" ocean. It was described in KGT in the section on idioms (pp.121-122): bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'. ("The sword is in the ocean.") This is another expression based on a story about Kahless. After Kahless's brother, Morath, killed their father, Morath threw their father's sword into the ocean, saying that if he could not have the sword, no one could. After that, the brothers never spoke again. The idiom bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e' ("The sword is in the ocean") is used to mean that something has ended, that it is impossible to return to a prior condition, just as Kahless and Morath never spoke to each other again. The expression might be used, for example, in reference to a treaty that was just signed, suggesting that a former state of antagonism has ended forever. Of course, simply saying that something will last forever does not make it so. If an alliance ends, the phrase is equally apt: the era of peace has ended, and the sword is in the ocean--there is no going back. --Voragh -----Original Message----- From: Lieven Am 22.10.2017 um 16:45 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
{bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'}
the sword is in the ocean
There is no real ocean, but we use the {-Daq} on the {bIQ'a'} neverthless.
In the phrase itself, the ocean *is* a real thing, so using -Daq here is not metaphorically. I think it's surely okay to use {-Daq} for a thing like the internet, and also on TV, having music in/on a CD, and any of the virtual places we talk about. I didn't find any real virtual locatives in canon examples, but maybe this works: {wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap} "We succeed together in a greater whole" This is one of the situations where I would say that we do not know for sure, but if it works, everyone understands and it does not break any known rules, then go ahead and use it that way. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type5NounSuffixes _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (4)
-
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel