does {-be'} negate the {-vIp} taboo?
In TKD 4.2.2, it says that: "This suffix [{-vIp}] is rarely used with a prefix meaning 'I' or 'we'. Though it is grammatically correct, it is culturally taboo." In TKD 4.3, in illustrating the rover {-qu'}, the following example sentences appear: {pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} "We are NOT afraid to kill you" {pIHoHvIpqu'be'} "We are not AFRAID to kill you" {pIHoHqu'vIpbe'} "We are not afraid to KILL you" It is then explained under which circumstances each of those sentences might be used. These sentences use the prefix {pI-}, which is "we-you", so it seems at first glance that those sentences satisfy the requirement of the taboo. The unnegated version, {pIHoHvIp} "we are afraid to kill you", is without question culturally taboo. However, does the fact that {-vIp} is negated by {-be'} change this? It's not explicitly stated, but it seems to me that a statement like "I am not afraid to fight you" would not be culturally taboo to say for a Klingon. However, in a discussion with a skilled Klingon speaker, it came up that he believes that that statement is still culturally taboo because it satisfies the description in TKD 4.2.2. I think that this is one of those cases where the TKD is giving a sketch, and the reader is supposed to work out that the opposite of a taboo statement is not taboo, but admittedly there is no evidence to support this in TKD itself. What do others think? -- De'vID
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:03 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
In TKD 4.2.2, it says that: "This suffix [{-vIp}] is rarely used with a prefix meaning 'I' or 'we'. Though it is grammatically correct, it is culturally taboo."
[...]
It's not explicitly stated, but it seems to me that a statement like "I am not afraid to fight you" would not be culturally taboo to say for a Klingon. However, in a discussion with a skilled Klingon speaker, it came up that he believes that that statement is still culturally taboo because it satisfies the description in TKD 4.2.2. I think that this is one of those cases where the TKD is giving a sketch, and the reader is supposed to work out that the opposite of a taboo statement is not taboo, but admittedly there is no evidence to support this in TKD itself.
What do others think?
I think negating the {-vIp} negates the taboo nature of using it in a first person statement. I think applying TKD's proscription without taking the {-be'} into account is unrealistic. -- ghunchu'wI'
Am 08.04.2021 um 00:03 schrieb De'vID:
The unnegated version, {pIHoHvIp} "we are afraid to kill you", is without question culturally taboo. However, does the fact that {-vIp} is negated by {-be'} change this?
What do others think?
I definitely agree that saying {jI...vIpbe'} is NOT culturally taboo, as it negates the taboo version. Remember that Klingon is not math. So if it is taboo to use -vIp with jI- that does not mean it is a taboo in all cases. What TKD says it that no Klingon would ever admit they are afraid of something. Using -be' negates the being afraid, so I guess it's not taboo to say that. I would even go a step further and say that even without -be' you can negate the phrase and make it a non-taboo version: {not jIHeghvIp} "I am never afraid to die!" {jIHeghvIp 'e' DaQub'a'?} "Do you think I'm afraid to die?" By the way, if you need evidence, it's very small, but think of it this way: If it were a taboo combination, then why was it used as a prominent example in TKD in chapter 4.3? It even explains when those phrases can be used. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Type2VerbSuffixes
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 08:07, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 08.04.2021 um 00:03 schrieb De'vID:
The unnegated version, {pIHoHvIp} "we are afraid to kill you", is without question culturally taboo. However, does the fact that {-vIp} is negated by {-be'} change this?
What do others think?
I definitely agree that saying {jI...vIpbe'} is NOT culturally taboo, as it negates the taboo version.
Remember that Klingon is not math.
That argument cuts both ways, though. *I* think it's logical that negating a taboo statement makes it non-taboo, but then someone else can also reasonably say "logic doesn't matter, the rules are the rules regardless of logic...". And I would agree with that statement in some other cases, but not in this one. (For example, it's logical that a verb which has {'e'} as its object can take an aspect suffix, but TKD says it never does, and that's the rule regardless of how illogical it is... even though the rule has been broken in canon.)
I would even go a step further and say that even without -be' you can negate the phrase and make it a non-taboo version:
{not jIHeghvIp} "I am never afraid to die!" {jIHeghvIp 'e' DaQub'a'?} "Do you think I'm afraid to die?"
Exactly. I think the reason that TKD 4.2.2 says {-vIp} is "rarely" used with a first-person prefix (and not "never") is for these kinds of situations. But that's just my interpretation, and apparently others interpret things differently.
By the way, if you need evidence, it's very small, but think of it this way: If it were a taboo combination, then why was it used as a prominent example in TKD in chapter 4.3? It even explains when those phrases can be used.
That was exactly what I said. The other person's counterargument was that those statements *are* taboo, and TKD contains taboo statements as examples of usage (which is true that it does), so the fact that they're used as examples doesn't demonstrate that they're not taboo. He's not on the mailing list (which is why I didn't name him), but you can see his comment to me in the Learn Klingon group on Facebook. I think his position is also reasonable (if, to me, a bit odd), which is why I asked if anyone else thinks this way. -- De'vID
Am 08.04.2021 um 10:56 schrieb De'vID:
That argument cuts both ways, though.
Yes, of course. Klingon is not math, but it' also not logical. We have some people on this list who also insist on the rules and technically, as long as we don't have a statement from Maltz, we really cannot be sure about any kind of interpretation. But still... look at those examples from TKD and their explanations: {pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} "we are NOT afraid to kill you" "The first word above might be used after an enemy challenged the bravery of the speaker. " Honestly, do you really think it would be a taboo in such a situation to tell your enemy that you're NOT afraid to kill them? ------ {pIHoHvIpqu'be'} "we are not AFRAID to kill you" "The second might be followed by an explanation such as, "We are not willing to kill you because we require your services." Also here it says where to use it without any comment on being a taboo, and I think there is no taboo in saying that one is not afraid to kill someone. It's even a definite Klingon attitude: We are afraid of nothing! ------ {pIHoHqu'vIpbe'} "we are not afraid to KILL you" "The third word would be used to emphasize killing, as opposed to some other form of punishment." Again, this is a very Klingon way of thinking. I've spent enough time among Klingons to know that there is taboo ins aying sucha thing. ------ So after all, I see no reason to discuss about this thing having thse examples. I know we cannot be sure 100%, but if this were a taboo suffix, why is it used as an example for usage in normal situations. BTW in most cases, when Okrand gave us incorrect phrases, he usually said not use them or recommends only experienced users should do so. But no word in thise case. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Hamletmachine
On 4/8/2021 6:14 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
"The first word above might be used after an enemy challenged the bravery of the speaker. "
"The second might be followed by an explanation such as, 'We are not willing to kill you because we require your services.'"
"The third word would be used to emphasize killing, as opposed to some other form of punishment."
These explanations are the key. The translations not only say what the sentences /mean;/ these explanations show how a Klingon might legitimately use the sentences. They are context. There is no whiff of taboo mentioned in these canonical descriptions of how to use these sentences. The taboo is not simply the combination of certain syntactic elements. The taboo is in admitting fear using certain syntactic elements. If you're not admitting fear or appearing to do so, there is no taboo. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
SuStel