The problem of the same word being both a verb and a noun
Often, while writing, I come across the problem of having to use a word which exists both as a verb and a noun, e.g. {choH} (v) change, {choH} (n) change. And the problem being, making absolutely certain that the reader will immediately understand that it is e.g. the noun that I use and not the verb, or vice versa. And recently I found the solution of adding a verb or noun suffix, depending on the situation. For example, instead of writing {qa'Daj choH} for "the change of his spirit", writing {qa'Daj choHna'} "the definite change of his spirit". Or, instead of {qa'Daj choH} for "it changes his spirit", saying {qa'Daj choHba'} "it obviously changes his spirit". Of course context could also specify. But there are times I feel, we're leaving so many things on context, to the point of assuming the reader to be some kind of psychic. ~ mayqel qunen'oS minas morgulDaq matlhabchoHchu'pu'
Am 19.11.2018 um 17:40 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
And recently I found the solution of adding a verb or noun suffix, depending on the situation.
I think that is a very good approach, but you still change the meaning of the phrase. {qa'Daj choH} is not the same as {qa'Daj choHba'}. As you mention that context makes things clear, I'd suggest to just make up context, which does not change the meaning. Remember the dialect note on {'uS qaMb} and {nach qaMb}. Usually, you don't just say a standalone sentence, so context comes automatically. It's like Englisch "Park!" - Does it mean "Park your car" or "That's a beautiful park". You don't just say that without context. One doesn't just walk in a room and say only one sentence. And even then, if a sentence is not clear, the other person should ask how you mean that. rIn. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Context
On 11/19/2018 11:40 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Often, while writing, I come across the problem of having to use a word which exists both as a verb and a noun, e.g. {choH} (v) change, {choH} (n) change.
And the problem being, making absolutely certain that the reader will immediately understand that it is e.g. the noun that I use and not the verb, or vice versa.
And recently I found the solution of adding a verb or noun suffix, depending on the situation.
For example, instead of writing {qa'Daj choH} for "the change of his spirit", writing {qa'Daj choHna'} "the definite change of his spirit".
Or, instead of {qa'Daj choH} for "it changes his spirit", saying {qa'Daj choHba'} "it obviously changes his spirit".
Of course context could also specify. But there are times I feel, we're leaving so many things on context, to the point of assuming the reader to be some kind of psychic.
Bah! Write clearly and concisely, without adding meanings you don't intend. Give me a fuller example in which *qa'Daj choH* seems ambiguous, and I'll show you how to write it more clearly without gimmicks, or else I'll show you why the sentence is not actually in danger of being misinterpreted. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:41 AM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Often, while writing, I come across the problem of having to use a word which exists both as a verb and a noun, e.g. {choH} (v) change, {choH} (n) change.
And the problem being, making absolutely certain that the reader will immediately understand that it is e.g. the noun that I use and not the verb, or vice versa.
And recently I found the solution of adding a verb or noun suffix, depending on the situation.
For example, instead of writing {qa'Daj choH} for "the change of his spirit", writing {qa'Daj choHna'} "the definite change of his spirit".
Or, instead of {qa'Daj choH} for "it changes his spirit", saying {qa'Daj choHba'} "it obviously changes his spirit".
Of course context could also specify. But there are times I feel, we're leaving so many things on context, to the point of assuming the reader to be some kind of psychic.
All languages require the reader to resolve ambiguity with context. When you're writing a language you and your audience are both fluent in, though, you already know what sorts of things are likely to be confusing and which things aren't, so you don't really think of such things as needing context. In a sentence like "I left my tie at work", half the words have other meanings, but no one is likely to misinterpret "left" as "left side", "tie" as "to tie a knot", or "work" as "to toil". Fluency helps you know what meanings are possible and which of those are likely to be intended. In the case of Klingon, it's easy to be unsure of what sentences will be confusing if you're still working on fluency, and if most of your audience is also working on fluency. You don't have a good feel yet for what sort of context can be assumed. Happens to me all the time. In your specific examples, though, I'd probably interpret {qa'Daj choH} as a noun phrase if it appeared in a sentence with another verb (e.g. {qa'Doj choH vIlegh} "I see the change in his spirit"), and {qa'Daj choH} as a verb phrase if it appeared on its own as a sentence, since sentence fragments are uncommon outside Clipped Klingon. (Another way to clarify that {choH} is a verb would be to make the subject explicit: {qa'Daj choH 'oH.})
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 17:41, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Often, while writing, I come across the problem of having to use a word which exists both as a verb and a noun, e.g. {choH} (v) change, {choH} (n) change.
This isn't a good example, since the verb takes a subject and an object, so it's clear based on the surrounding words whether {choH} has to be a noun or a verb. A much better class of examples are adjectival verbs which are also nouns, since then it becomes unclear whether something is a noun-noun construction or a noun followed by an adjectival verb. For example, does {Sep Hol Sar} mean "a regional language variety" (i.e., a regional dialect), or "various regional languages"? And the problem being, making absolutely certain that the reader will
immediately understand that it is e.g. the noun that I use and not the verb, or vice versa.
And recently I found the solution of adding a verb or noun suffix, depending on the situation.
For example, instead of writing {qa'Daj choH} for "the change of his spirit", writing {qa'Daj choHna'} "the definite change of his spirit".
Or, instead of {qa'Daj choH} for "it changes his spirit", saying {qa'Daj choHba'} "it obviously changes his spirit".
But that changes the meaning. There's no possibility of {qa'Daj choH} being confused in any case, since by itself, it's a sentence (so {choH} must be a verb). If you meant the noun phrase, then it's not a complete sentence, so there must be another verb, e.g., {qa'Daj choH vIbejtaH}. One possibility for confusion is a verb which takes a sentence as an object without {'e'}, of which we know only one: {neH}. So {choH vIneH} can mean "I want the change" or "I want that it changes". But I can't see any context which isn't artificial in which such a confusion might happen. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel