Re: Let's get this party started... Saul Epstein Fri, 8 May 1998 15:25:28 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 2:07 PM >At 10:03 AM 5/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >>Gaudy: Is something bothering you, Barf? >> qa an'[bo]xe[ther] s'hi lahe, Barfa? >> ? it-bother-PROGRESSIVE you-ACCUSATIVE PRESENT, Barf-VOCATIVE > >Why the progressive aspect on "bother"? I'm preserving the English, perhaps unnecessarily. "Is bothering" is present progressive, meaning that the action in question is in progress at present but began before the present and continues after. >Also we probably need a few >more "it" like particals, including stuff like: something, everything >and nothing. Maybe meaning unspecified thing, all things, and no things >respectively. Such would be useful. >If I were going to reverse the translation back to English I would >read this as "It bothers you, Barfa?" Or in typical English, "Does it bother you?" Or "Is it bothering you?" with the progressive aspect. And a word for "thing" would get us closer. >>Barf: I am untroubled. Why do you ask? >> nirc th'[trou]tsu[ble]. s'[a]tsu[sk] qantca lehe? >> not I-trouble-PERFECT. you-ask-PERFECT what-ABLATIVE PAST1 > >Hmmm..,I actually find all these aspects confusing. I would have just >left it unspecified in all three cases so far. I know. Here I'm also preserving the English, and the Barf character uses the present perfect, meaning the action in question is confined to the present. He might have been troubled just a bit ago, and he might become troubled any second (which turns out to be the case) but right when asked the question, he isn't. (To be sure, in Standard English it would be difficult to put together a sentence like this one using the progressive to match the question...) For the returning question, I took advantage of the fact that we're giving Vulcan a proximate and a remote past. So the character can say, roughly, "Why did you ask just now?" rather than the iffy "Why do you ask?" which is fine in English. >>Gaudy: You have a furroughed brow. >> s'[forehead][wrinkled] >> >>Barf: All Klingoffs have those, you fool! >> th'klingofje, s'[fool]a! >> I-Klingof-HABITUAL, you-fool-VOCATIVE >> >>(To lend this a bit more of a Vulcan flavor (?), I've changed the last >>line to mean something more like "I am a Klingon" which entails the >>bumpy forehead and is therefore logically sufficient explanation.) > >Habitually a klingon? Hmmm... > >About > >diklingon a-sji'at s'[fool]a! > >di- is the universal affirmation, I talked about in my previous post >on logic in Vulcan, and sji is a partical added to a diectic when you >want to specify a preceeding subject or object. [...] >Thus, diklingon a-sji'at s'[fool]a would mean: >"All Klingons posess that (thing you mentioned previously), you fool!" OK. I think that would be , though. "All-Klingons' (is)what-you-said." >We might need to further refine that thought, so you can differentiate >between multiple speakers. Not sure if that's necessary or not, though. Not if they're all being polite and taking turns. ;-) >>So, words we need, as far as I can tell: >> >> bother/trouble >> ask >> fool >> >>Note to Rob: I've used your habitual suffix in the last line, which is >>probably inexact. What I'm looking for is a periodic contour for >>something that is what it is or does what it does continuously because >>that's just the way it is. > >Hmmmm...,That seems too..,err..,demonological, to me. It brings to mind >that patentaly absurd platonic ideal thing, or essentialist idea. That >things have essential natures. That's something I think we should >avoid. Ah, yes. I didn't mean "just the way it is" in terms of essence or nature per se. But while a broad habitual aspect would include things like "I am a Klingon" as well as "I am a lumberjack," your elaboration of periodic contour seems to demand -- or at least allow -- more precision. So I was looking for that. Without getting into the difference between Klingon-by-birth and a "true" Klingon that lives the life, there is a passive Klingonness that is responsible for each Klingon's forrowed brow. >It would make sense to me to look at that particular sentance from >a classification kind of view, i,e. I assert that all of the class >of beings I call klingons possess a furrowed brow. Right. An applicable syllogism might be: All Klingons have furrowed brows, regardless of their emotional state. I am a Klingon. I have a furrowed brow, regardless of my emotional state. My idea was to have the character simply state the, um, minor? premise. >>Also, I figure we can use some contour or >>other to indicate the wrinkledness of the forehead. If that sounds >>right, can you tell us which one and how to say it? > >hmmm... I was about ready to throw out spatial periodic contours, but >you seem to have found a use for them. [...] >Although I'm still not sure that these might not work better as >a great number of qualifier words, rather than particals. So, ? -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com http://www,jccc,net/~sepstein "Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi suraketca'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at