SuStel:
So QochHa' can mean undoing a state of > disagreement, or it can mean disagreeing with the wrong thing or at an inappropriate time.
I would like to discuss this a little more, just to be certain that I understand {QochHa'} correctly. By "undoing a state of disagreement", we mean that "we disagreed and now we agree again". By "disagreeing with the wrong thing", we mean that "I thought it was a fox, you thought it was a dog, so we disagreed, although what it actually was, was a sheep". By "disagreeing at an inappropriate time", we mean that "the time was inappropriate because it was late at night, or because we where disagreeing about feeding the cat while our planet was collapsing". Are the above correct ? ~ hchchc
On 8/15/2019 7:11 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
So QochHa' can mean undoing a state of > disagreement, or it can mean disagreeing with the wrong thing or at an inappropriate time.
I would like to discuss this a little more, just to be certain that I understand {QochHa'} correctly.
I consider the meaning of *QochHa'* to be a little uncertain, so what I say here is just speculation.
By "undoing a state of disagreement", we mean that "we disagreed and now we agree again".
Yes, or it could just mean that there was an implicit assumption of disagreement that has been proven wrong by me saying I agreed with you all along.
By "disagreeing with the wrong thing", we mean that "I thought it was a fox, you thought it was a dog, so we disagreed, although what it actually was, was a sheep".
No, it would be more like "I don't think it was a fox, I think it's a dog." "But we're talking about the elephant."
By "disagreeing at an inappropriate time", we mean that "the time was inappropriate because it was late at night, or because we where disagreeing about feeding the cat while our planet was collapsing".
It would be like disagreeing with something that wasn't stated to be an objective fact. "I like that." "I disagree!" -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
What follows is 100% opinion: I think that Maltz erred when he defined {Qochbe’} as “Agree”. I believe “Agree" should have been defined as {QochHa’}. {Qochbe’} should merely mean that you don’t disagree, which is not quite as negative as agreeing. By defining “Agree” as {Qochbe’}, we lose the ability to casually express that we neither agree nor disagree. We lose what we have for pretty much every other verb in the vocabulary. The mere negative becomes the antonym, and so the actual expression of the antonym becomes meaningless. In other words, every other verb has a “be true” value of 1 (no negation), 0 ({-be’}), or -1 ({-Ha’}), but this verb uniquely has only the values 1, -1. There is no zero. No, I’m not trying to change the definition. I honestly think that it’s a screwup that we have to live with because if we don’t all stick to cannon, then it’s a slippery slope to chaos. Where do we draw the line? So, I believe that {QochHa’} is technically meaningless, since THE THING THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO MEAN, going by the general meaning of {-Ha’} as applied to any other verb in the vocabulary, is covered by the mere use of {-be’}. Thus, having {Qochbe’} mean “agree”, there is never a reason to use {QochHa’}. We can do logical/linguistic gymnastics pretending to make sense of {QochHa’}, but it is a word that lacks a reason d’être, being redundant, perhaps, with {Qochbe’chu’}. This is not a new discovery for me. I recognized this over a decade ago, meeting it with an eye roll and a sigh, while building my first personal dictionary. Language is imperfect. Why should Klingon be different? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 15, 2019, at 9:03 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/15/2019 7:11 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
So QochHa' can mean undoing a state of > disagreement, or it can mean disagreeing with the wrong thing or at an inappropriate time.
I would like to discuss this a little more, just to be certain that I understand {QochHa'} correctly. I consider the meaning of QochHa' to be a little uncertain, so what I say here is just speculation.
By "undoing a state of disagreement", we mean that "we disagreed and now we agree again". Yes, or it could just mean that there was an implicit assumption of disagreement that has been proven wrong by me saying I agreed with you all along.
By "disagreeing with the wrong thing", we mean that "I thought it was a fox, you thought it was a dog, so we disagreed, although what it actually was, was a sheep". No, it would be more like "I don't think it was a fox, I think it's a dog." "But we're talking about the elephant."
By "disagreeing at an inappropriate time", we mean that "the time was inappropriate because it was late at night, or because we where disagreeing about feeding the cat while our planet was collapsing". It would be like disagreeing with something that wasn't stated to be an objective fact. "I like that." "I disagree!"
-- 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
On 8/15/2019 11:23 AM, Will Martin wrote:
By defining “Agree” as {Qochbe’}, we lose the ability to casually express that we neither agree nor disagree. We lose what we have for pretty much every other verb in the vocabulary. The mere negative becomes the antonym, and so the actual expression of the antonym becomes meaningless.
In other words, every other verb has a “be true” value of 1 (no negation), 0 ({-be’}), or -1 ({-Ha’}), but this verb uniquely has only the values 1, -1. There is no zero.
A long time ago I was involved in a discussion about "default" Klingon qualities: how in some words English uses as "default" word a word with a positive connotation, while the negative state is described by modifying the word (e.g., /happy/ vs. /unhappy/). Klingon has a lot of words where what we'd consider the negative connotation is the default, and you add a suffix to get the positive (to us) connotation. Okrand weighed in (http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-03-02a-news.txt) and said that with the word *par*/dislike,/ the word *parHa'*/undo-dislike, misapplied-dislike/ is more common than *parbe'*/not dislike./ He suggested that "this may be a hint at the usual way a Klingon looks at things." In other words, the presence of *parHa'* but not *parbe'* in the dictionary may be because it's more common among Klingons, not because there's a positive-neutral-negative scale going on. It's normal for Klingons to dislike something, and fairly normal to really like something, but not as common for them to be tepid in their reactions. So look at *Qoch.* Since *Qochbe'* and not *QochHa'* appears in the dictionary, we can speculate that this is another hint of Klingon attitudes. The idea goes: they consider disagreement *(Qoch) *a positive state, a lack of disagreement *(Qochbe') *a common neutral state, and strong agreement *(QochHa') *a somewhat rare and awkward state. Basically, Klingons don't like to go any farther than "Yeah, sure, whatever" *(Qochbe')* if they don't have to. If this is the case, and it's just fairly wild speculation, then *Qochbe'* is not an error, it's a cultural preference against strong agreement. *Qochbe'* and *QochHa' *mean what you think they mean, but English doesn't really distinguish between these words in a quick gloss, so the common one came out as /agree/ and the unusual one was left out. Or to put it another way: if a Klingon tells you he doesn't disagree with you *(Qochbe'),* assume it's the best you're going to get, and accept it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Good explanation. This makes sense. Thanks. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/15/2019 11:23 AM, Will Martin wrote:
By defining “Agree” as {Qochbe’}, we lose the ability to casually express that we neither agree nor disagree. We lose what we have for pretty much every other verb in the vocabulary. The mere negative becomes the antonym, and so the actual expression of the antonym becomes meaningless.
In other words, every other verb has a “be true” value of 1 (no negation), 0 ({-be’}), or -1 ({-Ha’}), but this verb uniquely has only the values 1, -1. There is no zero. A long time ago I was involved in a discussion about "default" Klingon qualities: how in some words English uses as "default" word a word with a positive connotation, while the negative state is described by modifying the word (e.g., happy vs. unhappy). Klingon has a lot of words where what we'd consider the negative connotation is the default, and you add a suffix to get the positive (to us) connotation.
Okrand weighed in (http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-03-02a-news.txt <http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-03-02a-news.txt>) and said that with the word par dislike, the word parHa' undo-dislike, misapplied-dislike is more common than parbe' not dislike. He suggested that "this may be a hint at the usual way a Klingon looks at things." In other words, the presence of parHa' but not parbe' in the dictionary may be because it's more common among Klingons, not because there's a positive-neutral-negative scale going on. It's normal for Klingons to dislike something, and fairly normal to really like something, but not as common for them to be tepid in their reactions.
So look at Qoch. Since Qochbe' and not QochHa' appears in the dictionary, we can speculate that this is another hint of Klingon attitudes. The idea goes: they consider disagreement (Qoch) a positive state, a lack of disagreement (Qochbe') a common neutral state, and strong agreement (QochHa') a somewhat rare and awkward state. Basically, Klingons don't like to go any farther than "Yeah, sure, whatever" (Qochbe') if they don't have to.
If this is the case, and it's just fairly wild speculation, then Qochbe' is not an error, it's a cultural preference against strong agreement. Qochbe' and QochHa' mean what you think they mean, but English doesn't really distinguish between these words in a quick gloss, so the common one came out as agree and the unusual one was left out.
Or to put it another way: if a Klingon tells you he doesn't disagree with you (Qochbe'), assume it's the best you're going to get, and accept it.
-- 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
It’s ironic, in that it’s a cultural explanation for how to use certain words, and you often and vociferously have objected to the idea that we should look at the language through the filter of “What would a Klingon say?”… But it is based on canon, so it’s clearly valid. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/15/2019 11:23 AM, Will Martin wrote:
By defining “Agree” as {Qochbe’}, we lose the ability to casually express that we neither agree nor disagree. We lose what we have for pretty much every other verb in the vocabulary. The mere negative becomes the antonym, and so the actual expression of the antonym becomes meaningless.
In other words, every other verb has a “be true” value of 1 (no negation), 0 ({-be’}), or -1 ({-Ha’}), but this verb uniquely has only the values 1, -1. There is no zero. A long time ago I was involved in a discussion about "default" Klingon qualities: how in some words English uses as "default" word a word with a positive connotation, while the negative state is described by modifying the word (e.g., happy vs. unhappy). Klingon has a lot of words where what we'd consider the negative connotation is the default, and you add a suffix to get the positive (to us) connotation.
Okrand weighed in (http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-03-02a-news.txt <http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-03-02a-news.txt>) and said that with the word par dislike, the word parHa' undo-dislike, misapplied-dislike is more common than parbe' not dislike. He suggested that "this may be a hint at the usual way a Klingon looks at things." In other words, the presence of parHa' but not parbe' in the dictionary may be because it's more common among Klingons, not because there's a positive-neutral-negative scale going on. It's normal for Klingons to dislike something, and fairly normal to really like something, but not as common for them to be tepid in their reactions.
So look at Qoch. Since Qochbe' and not QochHa' appears in the dictionary, we can speculate that this is another hint of Klingon attitudes. The idea goes: they consider disagreement (Qoch) a positive state, a lack of disagreement (Qochbe') a common neutral state, and strong agreement (QochHa') a somewhat rare and awkward state. Basically, Klingons don't like to go any farther than "Yeah, sure, whatever" (Qochbe') if they don't have to.
If this is the case, and it's just fairly wild speculation, then Qochbe' is not an error, it's a cultural preference against strong agreement. Qochbe' and QochHa' mean what you think they mean, but English doesn't really distinguish between these words in a quick gloss, so the common one came out as agree and the unusual one was left out.
Or to put it another way: if a Klingon tells you he doesn't disagree with you (Qochbe'), assume it's the best you're going to get, and accept it.
-- 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
On 8/15/2019 3:00 PM, Will Martin wrote:
It’s ironic, in that it’s a cultural explanation for how to use certain words, and you often and vociferously have objected to the idea that we should look at the language through the filter of “What would a Klingon say?”…
But it is based on canon, so it’s clearly valid.
Precisely. I'm (a) admitting that it's very speculative and (b) basing it on a canonical description of a speculative cultural influence on Klingon grammar. I do not object to cultural explanations, only to using non-canonical cultural explanations to decide grammatical matters. We have lots of cultural explanations guiding us. /Power Klingon /tells us all about the reasons why the only greeting is *nuqneH* and why you use replacement and secrecy proverbs. /Klingon for the Galactic Traveler/ tells us when it's appropriate to use slang and which cohorts pronounce things certain ways and why the various idioms mean what they mean. We're told about cultural taboos against using certain words and suffixes. These things all have their bases in Okrandian canon. But when someone says something like "Klingons don't like to humble themselves, so there is no way to apologize in Klingon," they're just making stuff up, and it's as inoperative as someone else saying the Klingon word for /hard drive/ is *letSeD.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 13:11, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
So QochHa' can mean undoing a state of > disagreement, or it can mean disagreeing with the wrong thing or at an inappropriate time.
I would like to discuss this a little more, just to be certain that I understand {QochHa'} correctly.
By "undoing a state of disagreement", we mean that "we disagreed and now we agree again".
Not necessarily "again". A: "I support plan 1." B: "jIQochbe'. I also support plan 1." A: "I support plan 1." B: "I support plan 2." A: "Here are the reasons plan 1 is better than plan 2..." B: "jIQochHa'. I switch my support to plan 1."
By "disagreeing with the wrong thing", we mean that "I thought it was a fox, you thought it was a dog, so we disagreed, although what it actually was, was a sheep".
By "disagreeing at an inappropriate time", we mean that "the time was inappropriate because it was late at night, or because we where disagreeing about feeding the cat while our planet was collapsing".
Are the above correct ?
I don't know what SuStel had in mind about disagreeing at an inappropriate time, but it's fairly easy to come up with examples of misplaced or misconstrued disagreement. A: "I say we advance the troops." B: "I think we should hold them in position." A: "Are we talking about the troops at the River Skrall or the ones at Kri'stak? I'm talking about the river." B: "jIQochHa'. I thought we were talking about taking the volcano, but I agree we should advance our troops at the river." -- De'vID
participants (4)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin