irrealis {net jal} and the {net jalchugh}
Suppose we say: {tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh..} The literal translation of this phrase is, "if someone imagines that you're a klingon..". However, for reasons I never understood, its' "final" translation is "if you were a klingon..". Why is this mismatch happening ? Is it a "because maltz said so" thing or something ? Anyways, moving on.. Assume that there are two klingons speaking, with regard to a recent romulan incursion. So, one of them asks: "how did it go ?" And the second wants to reply by saying "it could have been bad, but luckily..". I'm wondering.. Could we express this by saying something like the following ? {qablaHpu' ghu' net jal..} The literal translation would be "the situation has been able to be bad"; but why couldn't we translate this klingon sentence as in the {net jalchugh} case, thus producing the meaning: "the situation could be bad" ? Could we use the {net jal} on its own, producing a similar irrealis, (or however the @!#@ it's called), with the {net jalchugh} ? mayqel qunen'oS
Suppose we say: {tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh..}
The literal translation of this phrase is, "if someone imagines that you're a klingon..". However, for reasons I never understood, its' "final" translation is "if you were a klingon..". Why is this mismatch happening ? Is it a "because maltz said so" thing or something ?
When translating from one language to another, you normally wish to communicate the idea that the speaker wishes to convey, not the words they use to do it. When a Klingon says {[sentence] net jalchugh, [...]}, the idea they wish to express is normally roughly analogous to an irrealis conditional in English ("were it the case that [setence], [...]"). You could imagine cases where somebody uses the expression in a more literal sense (qIt ghu' qaq net jalchugh, chaq qaS Daw'.), and in that case it will be up to the translator to distinguish between the two senses. It's not that different from English: "Assuming pigs could fly, they would be far superior to carrier pigeons." "Assuming pigs could fly, I threw one off the balcony. I shouldn't have done that." //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 14:01 To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] irrealis {net jal} and the {net jalchugh} Suppose we say: {tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh..} The literal translation of this phrase is, "if someone imagines that you're a klingon..". However, for reasons I never understood, its' "final" translation is "if you were a klingon..". Why is this mismatch happening ? Is it a "because maltz said so" thing or something ? Anyways, moving on.. Assume that there are two klingons speaking, with regard to a recent romulan incursion. So, one of them asks: "how did it go ?" And the second wants to reply by saying "it could have been bad, but luckily..". I'm wondering.. Could we express this by saying something like the following ? {qablaHpu' ghu' net jal..} The literal translation would be "the situation has been able to be bad"; but why couldn't we translate this klingon sentence as in the {net jalchugh} case, thus producing the meaning: "the situation could be bad" ? Could we use the {net jal} on its own, producing a similar irrealis, (or however the @!#@ it's called), with the {net jalchugh} ? mayqel qunen'oS
On 2/25/2020 8:01 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose we say: {tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh..}
The literal translation of this phrase is, "if someone imagines that you're a klingon..". However, for reasons I never understood, its' "final" translation is "if you were a klingon..".
Why is this mismatch happening ? Is it a "because maltz said so" thing or something ?
loghaD has answered this.
Assume that there are two klingons speaking, with regard to a recent romulan incursion. So, one of them asks: "how did it go ?" And the second wants to reply by saying "it could have been bad, but luckily..".
I'm wondering.. Could we express this by saying something like the following ?
{qablaHpu' ghu' net jal..}
The literal translation would be "the situation has been able to be bad"; but why couldn't we translate this klingon sentence as in the {net jalchugh} case, thus producing the meaning: "the situation could be bad" ?
Could we use the {net jal} on its own, producing a similar irrealis, (or however the @!#@ it's called), with the {net jalchugh} ?
I don't think so. *net jalchugh* sets up the condition for an irrealis. It's a set phrase. *net jal* only means that someone is literally imagining something. There's no condition, so no irrealis, only someone imagining something. To translate something like this, you might want to establish the conditions of the irrealis of being bad. *muleghpu' 'avwI' net jalchugh, qab ghu', 'ach...*/If the guard had seen me, the situation would have been bad, but.../ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
loghaD:
When a Klingon says {[sentence] net jalchugh, [...]}, the idea they wish to express is normally roughly analogous to an irrealis conditional in English ("were it the case that [setence], [...]"). You could imagine cases where somebody uses the expression in a more literal sense (qIt ghu' qaq net jalchugh, chaq qaS Daw'.), and in that case it will be up to the translator to distinguish between the two senses.
Thanks for clarifying this ! So far, I've been under the impression that the *only* way someone could use the {net jalchugh} could be in the irrealis way. It's good to learn, that we can use it literally too. SuStel:
I don't think so. net jalchugh sets up the condition for an irrealis. It's a set phrase. net jal only means that someone is literally imagining something. There's no condition, so no irrealis, only someone imagining something.
ok, I understand.. It would be too good to be true, to be able to use the {net jal} on its own.. But, no problem ! Luckily we have the {net jalchugh}, so when the need for an irrealis will arise, we can avoid being caught with our pants down ! (I always found this english phrase very funny.. hahaha !) ~ mayqel qunen'oS
An Klingon observation from DS9 "Soldiers of the Empire": BASHIR: Another three centimeters to the right and you would have severed the brachial artery. […] And if that had happened, you would have bled to death right there in the holosuite. MARTOK: The human fascination with what might have been is tiresome, Doctor. The artery was not severed and I am not dead. -- Voragh _________________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of mayqel qunen'oS Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 1:07 PM loghaD:
When a Klingon says {[sentence] net jalchugh, [...]}, the idea they wish to express is normally roughly analogous to an irrealis conditional in English ("were it the case that [setence], [...]"). You could imagine cases where somebody uses the expression in a more literal sense (qIt ghu' qaq net jalchugh, chaq qaS Daw'.), and in that case it will be up to the translator to distinguish between the two senses.
Thanks for clarifying this ! So far, I've been under the impression that the *only* way someone could use the {net jalchugh} could be in the irrealis way. It's good to learn, that we can use it literally too. SuStel:
I don't think so. net jalchugh sets up the condition for an irrealis. It's a set phrase. net jal only means that someone is literally imagining something. There's no condition, so no irrealis, only someone imagining something.
ok, I understand.. It would be too good to be true, to be able to use the {net jal} on its own.. But, no problem ! Luckily we have the {net jalchugh}, so when the need for an irrealis will arise, we can avoid being caught with our pants down ! (I always found this english phrase very funny.. hahaha !) ~ mayqel qunen'oS
It sounds like Okrand has done some work to explain how one might express the irrealis in Klingon. I’m ignorant of that explanation. Forgive me, if I’m digging at something that I should just be accepting. I’m honestly trying to understand this mechanism. If I read {muleghpu' 'avwI' net jalchugh, qab ghu', 'ach…} instead of interpreting it as "If the guard had seen me, the situation would have been bad, but…”, I’d be more likely to interpret it as “If one imagines that the guard had seen me, the situation (that one is imagining that the guard had seen me) is bad, but…” In other words, one's imagining that the guard had seen me disturbs me. I disapprove of the event of one imagining this. That event of imagining is a bad situation. I don’t see the leap connecting the bad situation and the imagined event. I see the bad situation being the imagining of that event. In other words, if one, today, imagines that yesterday, the guard had seen me, the situation, today, is bad. Yesterday’s situation? It’s fine. The guard didn’t see me. I don’t want to just snipe at what might be a valid expression. I just don’t quite understand how the expression works. I also don’t want to just leave the problem open. I want to try to make a clearer expression, from my limited perspective and the grammatical tools my aging mind remembers. The way we used to do it was: {muleghpu’be’ ‘avwI’, vaj QaQ ghu’.} "The guard has not seen me, thus the situation is good." We could also use a rhetorical question, as is common in American Sign Language: {qatlh jIQuch? muleghpu’be’ ‘avwI’.} “Why am I happy? The guard didn’t see me." If we want to talk about bad situations instead of good ones, {muleghpu’be’mo’ ‘avwI’, ghu’ qab vIjunta’.} "I have evaded a bad situation because the guard has not seen me." Sticking closer to the original suggestion: {muleghpu’ ‘avwI’ net jalchugh, ghu’ qab jallu’pu’.} "If one imagines that the guard had seen me, one has imagined a bad situation." Now, the bad situation is pretty obviously the one that has been imagined. I’m not talking about the event of imagining the situation. I’m talking about the situation that one has imagined. So, enlighten me. What do I have wrong here? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 25, 2020, at 9:08 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Assume that there are two klingons speaking, with regard to a recent romulan incursion. So, one of them asks: "how did it go ?" And the second wants to reply by saying "it could have been bad, but luckily..".
I'm wondering.. Could we express this by saying something like the following ?
{qablaHpu' ghu' net jal..}
The literal translation would be "the situation has been able to be bad"; but why couldn't we translate this klingon sentence as in the {net jalchugh} case, thus producing the meaning: "the situation could be bad" ?
Could we use the {net jal} on its own, producing a similar irrealis, (or however the @!#@ it's called), with the {net jalchugh} ? I don't think so. net jalchugh sets up the condition for an irrealis. It's a set phrase. net jal only means that someone is literally imagining something. There's no condition, so no irrealis, only someone imagining something.
To translate something like this, you might want to establish the conditions of the irrealis of being bad. muleghpu' 'avwI' net jalchugh, qab ghu', 'ach... If the guard had seen me, the situation would have been bad, but...
-- 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 2/26/2020 10:34 AM, Will Martin wrote:
It sounds like Okrand has done some work to explain how one might express the irrealis in Klingon. I’m ignorant of that explanation. Forgive me, if I’m digging at something that I should just be accepting. I’m honestly trying to understand this mechanism.
The explanation was given to us on the list by Lieven on November 3, 2016: ------begin------ For a statement that's counterfactual (or "irrealis"), a phrase with the verb jal ("imagine, envision") is used: ... net jalchugh ("if one imagines that…", "if it is imagined that…"). For example: tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh, qagh DatIv This is "If you were a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh" or, literally, "If one imagines that you are a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh." The implication is that you are not a Klingon. Compare: qaghwIj DaSopchugh, qaHoH "If you eat my gagh, I'll kill you." qaghwIj DaSop net jalchugh, qaHoH "If you were eating my gagh, I would kill you" (literally: "If one imagines that you are eating my gagh…"). -------end-------
The way we used to do it was: {muleghpu’be’ ‘avwI’, vaj QaQ ghu’.} "The guard has not seen me, thus the situation is good."
We could also use a rhetorical question, as is common in American Sign Language: {qatlh jIQuch? muleghpu’be’ ‘avwI’.} “Why am I happy? The guard didn’t see me."
If we want to talk about bad situations instead of good ones, {muleghpu’be’mo’ ‘avwI’, ghu’ qab vIjunta’.} "I have evaded a bad situation because the guard has not seen me."
Sticking closer to the original suggestion:
{muleghpu’ ‘avwI’ net jalchugh, ghu’ qab jallu’pu’.} "If one imagines that the guard had seen me, one has imagined a bad situation."
Now, the bad situation is pretty obviously the one that has been imagined. I’m not talking about the event of imagining the situation. I’m talking about the situation that one has imagined.
So, enlighten me. What do I have wrong here?
Just that none of your sentences involve irrealis. They all have to do with factual or conditional statements. Irrealis is about hypothetical or counterfactual statements. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
Felix Malmenbeck -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin