[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[SuStel]

On 2/12/2016 11:02 AM, Brent Kesler wrote:
> SuStel, I understand your argument a lot better now.
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:37 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     The implication of the arguments being given by others is that
>     {QamchIyDaq} and {'uQ'a'} are not grammatically related words. The
>     title supposedly contains TWO complete ideas: {QamchIyDaq} "at
>     Qam-chee" and {'uQ'a'} "feast." The title, say some, is actually two
>     titles put next to each other: "at Qam-chee" and "feast" which,
>     while anecdotally correct, is not strictly the same thing as "the
>     feast at Qam-chee." (This is clearer with the {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey}
>     example.) Others say the title is part of a sentence that has had
>     its verb removed, though no explanation as to why this has happened
>     has been give.
>
>     {qep'a'vo' puvmeH}, on the other hand, consists of two grammatically
>     related words forming a single idea, saying that the chapter
>     describes the purpose of flying from the conference. {qep'a'vo'} is
>     the object of {puvmeH}. The two words have a describable
>     relationship with each other.
>
>
> toH! I think where you're saying "complete idea", I'd say "complete
> phrase". You see {qep'a'vo' puvmeH} as a complete phrase more or less
> because we could diagram it without having to assume any missing pieces.
> It might not be a complete /sentence/, but at least all the pieces we
> have converge into a single phrase. In {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} the pieces
> don't converge; we need some verb to join them together (either after
> the pieces or maybe between them). Without that verb, the phrase is as
> badly formed as if we left "in" out of "cat in the hat" (ie, *"cat the
> hat").

You've got it.

>     Okrand tells us that the paq'batlh is a back-translation into
>     Klingon from an English translation; the original has been lost. He
>     also says that any errors are his own. I am willing to take him at
>     his word here: there could be errors, and Okrand accepts
>     responsibility for them.
>
>
> I was not aware of this back story to paq'batlh; I guess the time has
> come for me to finally get a copy. Objection withdrawn.

Actually, I was a bit mistaken in that. Okrand describes the {no' Hol} 
origins of {paq'batlh}. However, it is Schönfeld et al. who provide the 
clearer account that an English version was produced based on the extant 
{no' Hol}, then a modern Klingon text translated from that by Okrand. 
The backstory, from both the introduction and from Okrand's note, is 
actually that there are a number of different versions of {paq'batlh} 
still told in {no' Hol}, but that this one derives from the fragments of 
an ancient text.


  Some relevant quotations from the "translator's note" by Okrand below:

    It can be assumed that on the Klingon home world there exists a
    version of the text that is considered canonical—perhaps several
    versions. Not having had access to these versions in our
    reconstruction, however, the best we can do in the translation is to
    find a style that will convey to human readers the same solemnity
    and reverence and excitement the Klingon does to Klingon readers.


    Among Klingons, the story of the {paq'batlh} is traditionally told
    in the ancient language, or {no' Hol}.


    In rendering the Klingon text in English, several objectives were
    kept in mind. The language had to be clear so that the story could
    be easily understood. It also had to retain the right tone of
    formality found in the original. The form of language used for the
    {paq'batlh} is not conversational, but is a heightened form of
    language, one that conveys by its choice of vocabulary and turns of
    phrase the importance of the story being told. Though the
    contemporary version is not as lofty, the English echoes the style
    that we would expect to find in {no' Hol}. Finally, both the English
    and modern Klingon texts had to follow the formal conventions of
    Klingon epic literature.


    Any errors, of course, remain my own.

> Maybe I'm about to embarrass myself again due to my lack of paq'batlh,
> but this seems a little weak to me. I don't think formal style
> necessarily rules out the use of sentence fragments--unless right after
> MO said paq'batlh is a back-translation, he also said that formal style
> explicitly rules out sentence fragments, just so he could embarrass me
> twice. I'm thinking of chapter titles in Victorian literature: "Wherein
> our Heroes Make an Important Discovery". While sentence fragments and
> Clipped Klingon overlap, I'm don't think they're the same.

And maybe heightened style does something similar, but we'd need some 
positive evidence before I agree that's what's going on.

> This brings me back to a point you made earlier:
>
>     It is the difference between a random set of unrelated words and a
>     formation of grammatically related words. The "missing word" theory
>     requires that the existing words not be related grammatically, and
>     are therefore not a single conceptual unit.
>
>
> Now I'm going to make my own weak argument. Victorian novels sometimes
> had chapter titles that were strings of unrelated phrases: "A discovery
> in a cave; a fight on the beach; an overdue reconciliation". However,
> that's really grasping at straws on my part. We might not use much
> punctuation in Klingon, but assuming MO left out a semicolon is too cute
> by half.

Okrand doesn't use ANY punctuation in the modern Klingon (except for a 
stray comma I noticed in one line), but in ALL other cases you can work 
out the grammar in part based on the line; there is little if any 
enjambment outside of the three-line structure, and lines contain 
complete clauses wherever possible.

It's certainly possible that {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} is like a Victorian 
saying "At Qam-chee; A Feast" as if these are two separate "events," but 
that's not the heightened English that Okrand is working from, and what 
Okrand IS working from can very easily and naturally lead to the error 
of directly translating "at-Qamchee feast." There is also no sense of 
sequence that the Victorian title has.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name