[Tlhingan-hol] Story: ghuv = The Recruit - 53

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>> The English word "be confused" has several meanings, e.g., (1) being
>> in a state of mental perplexity ("she was confused by the
>> instructions"), (2) not clearly organised or expressed ("his argument
>> is quite confused"), (3) mistaken for one another ("the twins are
>> often confused [with each other]"). These are different concepts which
>> don't necessarily map to the same word in another language.

ghunchu'wI':
> Are you arguing that definition (3) is the proper one?

I believe that the literal meaning of "mixed up" is the (originally)
intended meaning of {mIS}, if that's what you're asking.

ghunchu'wI':
> I'm having a
> difficult time coming up with ways to use {mIS} with that meaning.

tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq paq lutu'lu'. mIS.
may Qujvam. 'echletHommey vImISqu'moHchu'ta'!

Voragh mentioned that some people use {DuD} to mean "shuffle (cards)". I'd
use {mISmoH} for that meaning.

ghunchu'wI':
> Since the gloss is not "be confused for" or "be confused with", it
> would seem to be impossible to use it with a singular subject.

I don't see why this necessarily counts against this interpretation. There
are other words where the gloss makes it seem like they might only take
plural subjects: {pIm}, {rap}, {nIb}, {ghom} (when it doesn't take an
object}, {nga'chuq} (even if {chuq} might not actually be the suffix). We
know that the first three can be used adjectivally, and also that they can
be used with singular subjects if the context has been established, but
that's not apparent from the glosses.

There are also sentences like:
mIS ngop (grammatically singular but semantically plural)
mIS 'aplo' (the container is mixed up - that is, its contents are)

With prior context, I'd also accept {'aplo' mIS} "the mixed up container",
to distinguish between two containers one of which is organised, and the
other of which is not.

ghunchu'wI':
> I also
> can't see how to use {mISmoH} "confuse" in that sense without implying
> that someone is causing things to resemble each other so that someone
> else can't be certain which is which.

You don't have to cause things to resemble each other, only to make them
mixed up. This is just exactly how the verb "mix up, confuse" is used in
languages where it is a distinct word from "perplex, confuse".

ghunchu'wI':
> I also don't understand why you think a person being "mixed up" does
> not imply a mental state of confusion. I agree that I probably
> wouldn't look up that phrase if I didn't know the Klingon word for it,
> but I have never had a problem using it that way. It's definitely part
> of my vocabulary. When I use it I typically intend to describe
> mistaken certainty. I would be surprised if Marc Okrand didn't share
> that idiom.

Perhaps we have a dialectical difference, but even as an idiom, describing
a person as "mixed up" implies to me only a particular kind of mental
confusion: that of mistaking one thing for another.

But like I said, if the intended meaning had been "be confused, perplexed",
that's the gloss I'd have expected to see. My expectation is that the
definitions found in TKD avoid idioms.

ghunchu'wI':
> Even if the original intent was as you suggest, I think twenty years
> of consistent usage should carry enough weight to give its present
> meaning the one Qov used. It's like {chuQun} "nobility" -- while I am
> absolutely certain that it was supposed to mean an attribute similar
> to {nur} "dignity", it's now widely recognized through usage to refer
> to {joHpu'} "lords and/or ladies".

I haven't read {paghmo' tIn mIS} in a while, but the title "The Mix-Up is
Big Because of Nothing" seems to be in line with the interpretation that
{mIS} refers to things being mixed up (rather than people being mentally
confused, although of course that may naturally result from their being
mistaken for one another). Is {mIS} actually used to mean "be confused,
perplexed" in this book? Other than this book, where do we have twenty
years of consistent usage?

Your suggestion that years of consistent usage trumps definitions is
interesting, though. I accept that most Klingon speakers would probably
understand {mIS torgh} to mean "Torg is puzzled". I'd see it as slang -
something to avoid in situations which calls for more conservative language.

Do we have any info at all which meaning of "nobility" was intended for
{chuQun}?

> ja' Qov:
>> Would you prefer mIS torgh yab?

ghunchu'wI':
> I don't think that sentence addresses his complaint. If I understand
> him correctly, he wants to read it as saying the mind is being
> erroneously identified as something else (or vice versa).

I'd understand "Torg's mind is mixed up" to mean that he's mentally
confused (in a particular way). I don't know if I prefer it - I still read
it as metaphorical - but I have no alternative to suggest. {mIS torgh} is
probably fine, and I'm just being nitpicky.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20131023/d64b771d/attachment.html>