Sev Trek 1 (Part 7 Re: New project) Saul Epstein Fri, 26 Mar 1999 09:49:35 -0600 0443 - Let's get this party started... Saul Epstein Fri, 8 May 1998 10:03:54 -0500 Greetings all. I just got a message from John Cook of Sev Trek informing me that he's putting out a book of his strips in the near future. He'd very much like to include a few Vulcan translations in it, which means we need to get busy. So, taking Sev Trek's very first strip as an easily chosen starting point, here's a tentative structural translation: #1 Gaudy: Is something bothering you, Barf? qa an'[bo]xe[ther] s'hi lahe, Barfa? ? it-bother-PROGRESSIVE you-ACCUSATIVE PRESENT, Barf-VOCATIVE 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 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.) 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. 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? General Note re Rob's Particles: I realize that this may wind up being the de facto establishment of some of these, but I don't see anything else to do right now. I did make one change of to because I anticipate it fitting into words better. As a final note for now, I realize I'm being rather terse, dense, technical, obscure, etc. I strongly encourage, I beg, anyone who would like to be involved with this particular translation project, or with current development as a whole, to bombard the list with questions about anything that isn't clear, that doesn't make sense, that you think is wrong or could be done differently. I don't expect people to be familiar with the same terminology I am, I don't think my own familiarity is perfect, and I certainly don't consider myself an authority on Vulcan. If nothing else, arriving at answers will give us a head start on the sort of textbook-style documents we'll eventually need. ---------- 0444 - Re: Let's get this party started... Rob Zook Fri, 08 May 1998 13:51:49 -0500 At 10:03 AM 5/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >Greetings all. I just got a message from John Cook of Sev Trek >informing me that he's putting out a book of his strips in the near >future. He'd very much like to include a few Vulcan translations in >it, which means we need to get busy. > >So, taking Sev Trek's very first strip as an easily chosen starting >point, here's a tentative structural translation: > >#1 >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"? 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. If I were going to reverse the translation back to English I would read this as "It bothers you, Barfa?" >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. >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. We might have: sji - subject in last sentance ji- object in last sentance with this suffix? szi - subject in this sentance mentioned earlier zi- previously mentioned object in this sentance with this suffix So a-heji might refer to the location mentioned in the last sentance. Just something else, I've been thinking of, but haven't had time to fully work out yet. Thus, diklingon a-sji'at s'[fool]a would mean: "All Klingons posess that (thing you mentioned previously), you fool!" We might need to further refine that thought, so you can differentiate between multiple speakers. Not sure if that's necessary or not, though. >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. 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. In fact to make it more ironical, (and to totally mangle the metaphor) some Vulcan might use a word or couple of words meaning "trenches in a field ready to be sowed" :) to describe the klingon's brow, which is the literal meaning of furrowed. >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. How about -basro "sine wave in a plane" which could be a metaphor for rippled if you want to skip the furrow metaphor, or substitute a more Vulcan metaphor. Dimensionality: m^- point we- line ba- plane ho- solid cu- 4-d manifold (i,e. like space-time) vi- 5-d manifold (beyond time and space) Periodic Spatial Contours: (linear) (planar) (spatial) ni- straight flat smooth dee- sloped tilted askew tca- curved round spherical sro- sine wave rippled lumpy/bumpy qe- triangle wave trianglish tetragonal pyramidic hee- square wave squarish cubic Although I'm still not sure that these might not work better as a great number of qualifier words, rather than particals. >General Note re Rob's Particles: I realize that this may wind up >being the de facto establishment of some of these, but I don't see >anything else to do right now. I did make one change of to because I anticipate it fitting into words better. Yeah, I agree with that, it makes some combinations awkward, all of those interval aspects could be reversed to good effect I think. -ne- before and during (imperfect - initial) -xe- before, during and after (progressive) -dza- during and after (imperfect - final) -tsu- during (perfect) -du- before and after, but not during (?) ---------- 0445 - 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, ? ---------- 0446 - Re: Let's get this party started... Rob Zook Fri, 08 May 1998 23:47:33 -0500 At 03:25 PM 5/8/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >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. Are aspects manditory in English? Even so, should they be manditory in Vulcan? >>>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." Yup the example in the grammar: the'at katra "our katra", shows that the posessor gets the prefix. So, yes, . >>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. ;-) Well before the reformation Vulcan's probably did not feel very compelled to follow any rules of politeness :) >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. Well, pardon me if I seem to get too pedantic about it, but the only way I can describe this "klingonness" of the furrowed brow is with the characteristic of a class of things. >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. Well, something like, "I am a klingon, that of course follows" would seem pretty Vulcan in it's sarcasticness :) >>>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, ? If we go ahead and make them seperate words yes. I would have originally said , but I think the seperate words make more sense. ---------- 0447 - Re: Let's get this party started... Saul Epstein Sat, 9 May 1998 09:55:09 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Friday, May 8, 1998 11:47 PM > Are aspects manditory in English? They're built in to actual verb forms. So in a sense they're mandatory. Which is not to say that you inevitably use the same ones in similar situations. They aren't precise enough. Each has a domain of applicability, and you get to choose which is most appropriate. (The only forms that escape the tense-aspect-mood business aren't verbs: [verb base]-ing, without any form of "be," which makes a noun; [verb base]-ed, without any form of "have," which makes an adjective; and to [verb base], which makes an infinitive. And I'm simplifying some: not all verbs take -ed, and some take Latin-derived endings instead of Anglo-YouNameIt.) > Even so, should they be manditory > in Vulcan? I don't know. I'm probably always going to put one in, to distinguish between things like "I speak" and "my speech" , except in cases where I see no need to make the distinction. For instance, "Why do you ask?" could be (your-question from-what) as easily as (you-ask from-what just-now). > >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. > > Well, pardon me if I seem to get too pedantic about it, but the > only way I can describe this "klingonness" of the furrowed brow is > with the characteristic of a class of things. I'm not in a position to criticise anyone's pedance, nor was that my intention. Let's see if I can't say this better. Do all Klingons have long hair? This may or may not be true. If it is true, it represents a choice made by each of them not to cut her hair short. This is an active, or cultural Klingonness. Do all Klingons (barring TOS, of course) have bumpy foreheads? Yes. But this isn't a choice any of them made. So maybe there are several intersecting classes? People Klingon by Genesis, People Klingon by Culture, etc. That's all I meant. > >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. > > Well, something like, "I am a klingon, that of course follows" > would seem pretty Vulcan in it's sarcasticness :) That's what I was going for. Sort of an unstated, "Do the math, goofball." > >So, ? > > If we go ahead and make them seperate words yes. I would have > originally said , but I think the seperate > words make more sense. So, to restate my tentative translation, with some progress made: G: Is something bothering you, Barf? qa en'[bo]xe[ther] e[thing] s'hi lahe barfa ? it-bother-PROGRESSIVE something you-ACCUSATIVE PRESENT Barf- VOCATIVE B: 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 G: You have a furroughed brow. basro s'[forehead] planar-sine you(r)-forehead B: All Klingoffs have those, you fool! th'klingofje s'[foofool]a I-Klingof-HABITUAL, you-fool(INTENSIVE)-VOCATIVE And the missing words: bother/trouble thing ask forehead fool If anyone has candidate forms for these, speak up. Otherwise we'll have Rob press some for us with his mystery machine. ---------- 0448 - Re: Let's get this party started... Rob Zook Sat, 09 May 1998 20:53:42 -0500 At 09:55 AM 5/9/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: >> >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. >> >> Well, something like, "I am a klingon, that of course follows" >> would seem pretty Vulcan in it's sarcasticness :) > >That's what I was going for. Sort of an unstated, "Do the math, >goofball." > >> >So, ? >> >> If we go ahead and make them seperate words yes. I would have >> originally said , but I think the seperate >> words make more sense. > >So, to restate my tentative translation, with some progress made: > >G: Is something bothering you, Barf? > qa en'[bo]xe[ther] e[thing] s'hi lahe barfa > ? it-bother-PROGRESSIVE something you-ACCUSATIVE PRESENT Barf- > VOCATIVE Two more bits of pickiness. [something] needs to get some kind of suffix to specify it as the the object doing the bothering to barfa. Or, the object of barfa's bothering feelings. Otherwise it looks a little confusing as to which is the subject. Also, since we have the form, +<-a> "not-A yes-B", and -a as a vocative suffix, should we not figure out some way of differentiating the two? I suggest: -a vocative suffix, -ah, affirming suffix. >B: All Klingoffs have those, you fool! > th'klingofje s'[foofool]a > I-Klingof-HABITUAL, you-fool(INTENSIVE)-VOCATIVE If you want something like "I'm Klingon of course", how about this: the middle premise in an argument gets represented by , and the conclusion with . Let's use those and the self-identification suffix in ST:III <-wimic>, and say: its klingoffwimic ahzahz s'[foofool]a its klingoff-wimic [minor premise] klingoff-[I identify myself as] ahzahz s' -[foofool] -a [conclusion][intensive] you-fool[intensive]-[vocative] "(premise) I am klingon (and the rest is obvious), you fool!" identifies as the minor premise in an argument, and the intensive reduplication of the conclusion marker, makes the ironical statement, "and the conclusion is obvious". >And the missing words: > > bother/trouble > thing > ask > forehead > fool > >If anyone has candidate forms for these, speak up. Otherwise we'll >have Rob press some for us with his mystery machine. How about if no one answers before Monday morning, I'll go ahead and generate these words? ---------- 0450 - Re: Let's get this party started... Saul Epstein Sat, 9 May 1998 23:15:40 -0500 Quotes from: Rob Zook Date: Saturday, May 9, 1998 8:53 PM > At 09:55 AM 5/9/98 -0500, Saul Epstein wrote: > > >G: Is something bothering you, Barf? > > qa en'[bo]xe[ther] e[thing] s'hi lahe barfa > > ? it-bother-PROGRESSIVE something you-ACCUSATIVE PRESENT Barf- > > VOCATIVE > > Two more bits of pickiness. [something] needs to get some kind of > suffix to specify it as the the object doing the bothering to > barfa. Or, the object of barfa's bothering feelings. Otherwise it > looks a little confusing as to which is the subject. OK. That's what the vocative suffix is doing. In addition to saying "this entity is the addressee of the sentence" it implies, "this entity is not the subject." A superformal morphology would translate my e[thing] as "(some)thing-NOMINATIVE," where -NOMINATIVE is a "zero" morph meaning "this entity is the subject." > Also, since we have the form, +<-a> "not-A yes-B", and -a as a > vocative suffix, should we not figure out some way of > differentiating the two? That's been nagging me since the collapse of the "long-short" vowel distinctions... > I suggest: -a vocative suffix, -ah, affirming suffix. That works for me, though we'll need to make clear that you have to really pronounce that h. -a' might work well also... > If you want something like "I'm Klingon of course", how about this: > the middle premise in an argument gets represented by , and > the conclusion with . Let's use those and the self- > identification suffix in ST:III <-wimic>, and say: > > its klingoffwimic ahzahz s'[foofool]a > > its klingoff-wimic > [minor premise] klingoff-[I identify myself as] > > ahzahz s' -[foofool] -a > [conclusion][intensive] you-fool[intensive]-[vocative] > > "(premise) I am klingon (and the rest is obvious), you fool!" > > identifies as the minor premise in an > argument, and the intensive reduplication of the conclusion marker, > makes the ironical statement, "and the conclusion is obvious". I like it. A sophisticated "duh!" > >And the missing words: > > > > bother/trouble > > thing > > ask > > forehead > > fool > > > >If anyone has candidate forms for these, speak up. Otherwise we'll > >have Rob press some for us with his mystery machine. > > How about if no one answers before Monday morning, I'll go ahead > and generate these words? Sounds good. ---------- 0453 - Extra-planetary translation project MDriest Sun, 10 May 1998 14:07:59 -0400 Some questions... >>So, to restate my tentative translation, with some progress made: >> >>G: Is something bothering you, Barf? >> qa en'[bo]xe[ther] e[thing] s'hi lahe barfa >> ? it-bother-PROGRESSIVE something you-ACCUSATIVE PRESENT Barf- >> VOCATIVE > >Two more bits of pickiness. [something] needs to get some kind of >suffix to specify it as the the object doing the bothering to barfa. >Or, the object of barfa's bothering feelings. Otherwise it looks a >little confusing as to which is the subject. Well, just using my own feeling for grammar... First of all, it's 'barf', not 'barfa'. The last one is a vocative. It seems that the 'it' is doing the the bothering and is therefore subject of the sentence and takes a nominative. 'you' is the object of the bothering, takes an accusative and should show that. Actually, is does already. s'hi is an accusative. en' is therefore alone in the sentence and is therefore automatically the subject. Let's say it has a null-suffix to specify it as the subject. This happens in many languages. Remember that if we now make up such a suffix, we will have to use it in virtually all sentences. (i,e. th'klingof-suffix-je. Unncessary.) I really don't understand why this e[thing] is necessary? I agree we should have some specifications for words like thing. But why not do the specification with it(an')? BTW, why did an' change to en'? Why was 'thing' imported as a seperate word? >its klingoffwimic ahzahz s'[foofool]a > >its klingoff-wimic >[minor premise] klingoff-[I identify myself as] > >ahzahz s' -[foofool] -a >[conclusion][intensive] you-fool[intensive]-[vocative] > >"(premise) I am klingon (and the rest is obvious), you fool!" What is this -wimic? When we pull data from thin air, we need to incorporate it in our project. OK, it's canon, but I feel that the Vulcan we hear on film is not that useful in all instances. For example, the speech made by the high priestess in the beginning of ST:IV contains many riddles, against-canon material and blatant errors. I do not say we lose the -wimic. I merely point out it should fit in with the rest we have. There is a significant risk that we will develop fluent speakers of Vulcan (or w~l'q'n if you like) who cannot understand a word of what is said by the StarTrek-Vulcans. Paramount will never accept such a language. (I doubt if they will in any case...) BTW. Rob, I'd like to know just how this wonderous program exactly works. Could you give us at least a broad overview of its wee bairns? I changed the name of the posting. It seems more dignified. ---------- 0454 - Re: Extra-planetary translation project Saul Epstein Sun, 10 May 1998 14:39:51 -0500 Quotes from: MDriest Date: Sunday, May 10, 1998 1:07 PM >Some questions... [...] >en' is therefore alone in the >sentence and is therefore automatically the subject. Sort of. I meant to say something about this earlier, when you asked why in my "quote" I say or "Surak he-saved." I've been treating these pronoun particles, when attached to other words this way, as person- and number-indicating prefixes, like the suffixes in English and other Indo-European languages: sav + e = 1st person singular sav + est = 2nd person singular sav + eth = 3rd person singular and so on. This system is deteriorated in Modern English, of course. The little pieces on the end, attached to the root, make the resulting words mean, "I save, thou savest, she saveth," respectively; but you can't leave the little pieces off just because you happen to be naming the subject in the sentence rather than relying on pronouns. This is still the case in "proper" Modern English, even though we only distinguish 3rd-singular from all the others. I don't know that this is the case in Vulcan at all. But the assumption that it is motivates my translations so far... >I really don't understand why this e[thing] is necessary? That was my response to Rob's notice that without an explicit subject, the sentence could be taken to ask about the bothersomeness of an understood subject, rather than about the existance of some subject which happens to be bothersome. And since I intended the latter, I made the subject explicit. I agree that this is not strictly speaking necessary, but I also think that it results in a less ambiguous sentence. >BTW, why did >an' change to en'? Oh, you ARE paying close attention. I meant originally; was a typo. I'm making use of the five-level deixis to let the speaker be more precise in his question. The thing whose existence he would establish is near but imperceptible to him: otherwise he wouldn't have to ask if it existed. ---------- 0455 - Re: Extra-planetary translation project MDriest Mon, 11 May 1998 18:09:29 -0400 >>Some questions... >>[...] >>en' is therefore alone in the >>sentence and is therefore automatically the subject. > >Sort of. I meant to say something about this earlier, when you asked >why in my "quote" I say or "Surak he-saved." I've >been treating these pronoun particles, when attached to other words >this way, as person- and number-indicating prefixes, like the >suffixes in English and other Indo-European languages: > > sav + e =3D 1st person singular > sav + est =3D 2nd person singular > sav + eth =3D 3rd person singular >The little pieces on the end, attached to the root, make the >resulting words mean, "I save, thou savest, she saveth," >respectively; but you can't leave the little pieces off just because >you happen to be naming the subject in the sentence rather than >relying on pronouns. > >>I really don't understand why this e[thing] is necessary? > >That was my response to Rob's notice that without an explicit >subject, the sentence could be taken to ask about the bothersomeness >of an understood subject, rather than about the existance of some >subject which happens to be bothersome. And since I intended the >latter, I made the subject explicit. I agree that this is not >strictly speaking necessary, but I also think that it results in a >less ambiguous sentence. I agree. Vulcan should be an exact language without doubt as to what is meant. Leave the 'bits' in. >>BTW, why did an' change to en'? > >Oh, you ARE paying close attention. I meant originally; >was a typo. I thought so. an' would have been illogical. Thanks for the compliment. Excerpt from another posting: >> Also, since we have the form, +<-a> "not-A yes-B", and -a as a >> vocative suffix, should we not figure out some way of >> differentiating the two? > >That's been nagging me since the collapse of the "long-short" vowel >distinctions... Did they? When and why exactly did Vulcan loose the long-short vowel distinction? Because no one used them anyway? Or should I ask 'no man'? Regarding the affirmative suffix, why not use a:? It means 'yes' already. I would like to stress the need for a symmetrical system. We should be able to make male nouns from female nouns and the other way around. For example, what is the male form of T'Sai? Instead of disputing that with each and every word we come accross, we should have an algorithm for that. Preferably not too complicated. Do we have a male-female distinction yet? I've never seen it but we clearly need it. The simplest way to do it is to loose the T'. Somehow that doesn't feel right. Anyone? >"Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi > suraketca'." I never commented on this in public but it is a wonderful quote. I of course still do not agree with you on the spelling but in other aspects, you're absolutely right. ---------- 0456 - Re: Extra-planetary translation project Saul Epstein Mon, 11 May 1998 21:35:51 -0500 Quotes from: MDriest Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 5:09 PM >Excerpt from another posting: [originally Rob's] > >>> Also, since we have the form, +<-a> "not-A yes-B", and >>> -a as a vocative suffix, should we not figure out some way >>> of differentiating the two? >> >>That's been nagging me since the collapse of the "long-short" >>vowel distinctions... > >Did they? When and why exactly did Vulcan loose the long-short >vowel distinction? Because no one used them anyway? In a sense, yes. Having actually heard Marketa's pronunciation, my tentative analysis removes the "short" (or "long," depending on your perspective) vowels as separate phonemes from the "long" (or "short") ones. I never have gotten around to sifting through all the data, that's something I should get back to... >Regarding the affirmative suffix, why not use a:? It means 'yes' >already. Ah, yes. Well, if there is an /a:/, it can be used; whereas the reverse is also true. One of the things I had difficulty with, back when I was working on this, was sorting out occurances of [^] from [a]. (In the pronunciations, not the spelling.) If those are separate phonemes, one could be a logical affirmative and the other a syntactic vocative. (Something else I noticed was that <'> literally lengthened the preceding vowel -- if any -- rather than changing its position as <:> was supposed to. Which is why I suggested using -a' as a suffix distinct from -a...) >I would like to stress the need for a symmetrical system. >We should be able to make male nouns from female nouns and >the other way around. Before I can agree with that, I need to know what a female noun is, as opposed to a male noun. If you mean a noun which in a given instance names an entity which also happens to be female, then I don't see that any distinction need be made. If you mean a noun which has a purely grammatical gender, I don't think Vulcan grammar allows for that. (This is only my opinion, though.) That only leaves a very few words for which the actual gender of the entity makes gender-specific terms necessary. >Do we have a male-female distinction yet? I've never seen it >but we clearly need it. > >The simplest way to do it [derive male for ] is to >loose the T'. Somehow that doesn't feel right. Anyone? In Rob's last trial of his word-generator, a form was assigned to a slot in his gloss-list that read "aunt/uncle." This engendered a brief discussion as to whether Vulcans would have separate words for aunt and uncle; if so, whether meant "aunt" or "uncle;" if so, what the word for the other relative might be, in terms of a relationship to the first. The only pattern we have to go on is one neither Rob, Marketa, nor I like. In our base dictionary, is "male life-partner" and is "female life-partner." On the subject, I said: I have two problems with the pattern (X is masculine, X-a is feminine) though. One, it's an extremely typical Indo-Euro-Semitic pattern. (I guess you could call it "Western," although that's misleading.) Two, it mirrors that cultural zone's larger tendency for titles to be masculine with feminine derivatives available, something I'd like to avoid as well. My second concern is the more important, as I don't think we're in any danger of adopting the pattern X-a is feminine where X is masculine. After I waxed complicated with kinship terms, Rob suggested we stick to genderless terms, so actually would end up meaning "parent's sibling" -- aunt *or* uncle. I don't think that addresses your question adequately, but now you have some acquaintance with a related discussion. And I guess the short form of my own position is that we really don't need a generally-applied, morphological, masculine-feminine distinction. I think it makes a lot of sense to have distinct words for mother and father because the role each plays in the reproductive process is of necessity different. I think it makes sense to have distinct words for relatives on one side of one's family compared to those on the other IF the Vulcans who speak this language are more strongly matrilineal than patrilineal or vice versa. It think it is absolutely inevitable that there will be gender distinctions in the terms for those participating in Pon Far and associated rituals. But otherwise..,hmm. That wasn't as short as I expected. >>"Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi >> suraketca'." > >I never commented on this in public but it is a wonderful >quote. I of course still do not agree with you on the >spelling but in other aspects, you're absolutely right. Thanks. (And as for the spelling, I think the morphology's out of sync with us too. I'll wait till that's a bit more settled to retranslate it, though.) After re-reading _The_Lost_Years_ yesterday, I have some more thoughts on the role which the woman I'm quoting played in Vulcan history. But if those thoughts ever coalesce and become better related to our community's musings, I'll share them on the general list rather than here. ---------- 0459 - Re: Extra-planetary translation project MDriest Tue, 12 May 1998 20:32:40 -0400 Quotes from Saul: [about the loss of long/short distinctions] >In a sense, yes. Having actually heard Marketa's pronunciation, my >tentative analysis removes the "short" (or "long," depending on your >perspective) vowels as separate phonemes from the "long" (or "short") >ones. I never have gotten around to sifting through all the data, >that's something I should get back to... I say. Well, if Marketa's pronunciation does not exhibit this distinction, what are we to do? It is a shame, though. It felt really Vulcan to me. So, the word "yes" becomes simply "a" and we need some variety on that phoneme for the aff. suffix. There are two possibilities. We use the phoneme /a/ for yes and the aff. suffix or we use two different phonemes. What do you all prefer? I prefer two different phonemes. In ancient Vulcan, the two functions may well have used the same phoneme. However, it is a reasonable idea to assume the Vulcans, through history, developed a difference for practical reasons. This has happened in many languages. (To be honest, the other way around too.) >(Something else I noticed was that <'> literally >lengthened the preceding vowel -- if any -- rather than changing its >position as <:> was supposed to. Which is why I suggested using -a' >as a suffix distinct from -a...) That may well be. I tried it and got similar results. The one problem is that we then have to distinguish in writing between the character a and the character a' or import the ' as an independent character. If we reach consensus on this I see no reason not to have -a' as a suffix. [about my ideas of male/female symmetrie] >Before I can agree with that, I need to know what a female noun is, >as opposed to a male noun. If you mean a noun which in a given >instance names an entity which also happens to be female, then I >don't see that any distinction need be made. If you mean a noun which >has a purely grammatical gender, I don't think Vulcan grammar allows >for that. (This is only my opinion, though.) That only leaves a very >few words for which the actual gender of the entity makes >gender-specific terms necessary. Purely grammatical gender is propably unnecessary and therefore quite illogical. (For example: 'cupboard' is f. and 'computer' is m.) I mean words which point at a biological entity. Aunt/uncle is a good example. The Vulcans are very, VERY precise people. Their genealogies are much more exact and certainly longer and more reliable then ours. I say words for family members differ for males and females. Not for matrilineal or patrilineal reasons but simply to be as exact as possible. In the novels we have seen words like sister-daughter, implying Vulcans do make more distinctions and describe a wider variety of relations then we do. So Vulcans would likely have separate words for aunt and uncle, if only by suffix or infix or the like. Is there a difference for animals? Or do Vulcans say: Look, a male sehlat! >And I guess the short form of my own position is that we really don't >need a generally-applied, morphological, masculine-feminine >distinction. I think it makes a lot of sense to have distinct words >for mother and father because the role each plays in the reproductive >process is of necessity different. I agree. Separate words then. It makes a lot of sense. For words like carpenter, scientist, healer etc. we should have genderless words. Adun and Aduna: can be explained away as ancient Vulcan. The stone age Vulcans were bound to have such words... And what about 'priestess'? As far as I understand, men cannot be a priest. Hey! The Vulcans are inverted Catholics! ;=) >I think it makes sense to have distinct words for relatives on one >side of one's family compared to those on the other IF the Vulcans >who speak this language are more strongly matrilineal than >patrilineal or vice versa. I am not sure. I said earlier that Vulcans are VERY exact. Is there a Vulcan distinction between for example paternal grandfather and maternal grandfather? I say yes. Are there two seperate words or is the distinction made through -fixes? I prefer the first option. >It think it is >absolutely inevitable that there will be gender distinctions in the >terms for those participating in Pon Far and associated rituals. But >otherwise..,hmm. That wasn't as short as I expected. Naturally those distinctions are there. And you're forgiven. I propose to go back to the SevTrek-joke. I am quite happy with the last translation. If no one has any problems, we can fit in the new words and go on to the next. ---------- 0461 - Re: Extra-planetary translation project Saul Epstein Wed, 13 May 1998 10:19:36 -0500 Quotes from: MDriest Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 8:04 PM >Quotes from Saul: > >[about the loss of long/short distinctions] >>In a sense, yes. Having actually heard Marketa's >>pronunciation, my tentative analysis removes the "short" (or >>"long," depending on your perspective) vowels as separate >>phonemes from the "long" (or "short") ones. I never have >>gotten around to sifting through all the data, that's >>something I should get back to... > >I say. Well, if Marketa's pronunciation does not exhibit this >distinction, what are we to do? It is a shame, though. It felt >really Vulcan to me. I hope it's clear that the "long" and "short" PHONES are still present. (At least for /i/ and /e/. There seem to be similar "doubles" for the other vowels, with the likely exception of /u/.) When I said "collapse," I referred to the combination of the V/V: pairs as allophones of a smaller set of PHONEMES. That is, it seems to be the case that a phoneme /i/ is pronounced as what was labelled [i] in some contexts and [i:] in others. >>(Something else I noticed was that <'> literally >>lengthened the preceding vowel -- if any -- rather than >>changing its position as <:> was supposed to. Which is why I >>suggested using -a' as a suffix distinct from -a...) > >That may well be. I tried it and got similar results. No, I meant I noticed this in Marketa's pronunciation of words with <'> in them. Not that it is somehow automatic. >The one problem >is that we then have to distinguish in writing between the character >a and the character a' or import the ' as an independent character. >If we reach consensus on this I see no reason not to have -a' as a >suffix. Well, in the transcription, <'> is already an independent character... >[about my ideas of male/female symmetrie] >I mean words which point at a biological entity. Aunt/uncle is a >good example. The Vulcans are very, VERY precise people. Their >genealogies are much more exact and certainly longer and more >reliable then ours. > >I say words for family members differ for males and females. Not for >matrilineal or patrilineal reasons but simply to be as exact as >possible. With apologies to the more logical among us, it is impossible to be as exact as possible. Exactitude is local: it depends on significance. It would make more sense, I think, for Vulcans to be as exact as necessary, as useful. Aunts and uncles are less biological entities than cultural entities. And if one's aunts are responsible for arranging her betrothal while her uncles are responsible for guiding her to an occupation, or if her mother's sibling's children are governed by incest taboo while her father's sibling's children aren't -- these are worth noting, worth naming. If the only difference between an aunt and an uncle is their biological gender, that makes as little difference as it would for a doctor or a farmer. So it seems to me, anyway. >Is there a difference for animals? Or do Vulcans say: Look, a male >sehlat! Probably the latter. If the gender of the sehlat were important. >And what about 'priestess'? As far as I understand, men cannot be a >priest. Hey! The Vulcans are inverted Catholics! ;=) Really? That's... interesting. Lends a lot of support to the idea that the dominant Vulcan culture is matrilineal. Depending on what the exact role of the priesthood is. >I propose to go back to the SevTrek-joke. I am quite happy >with the last translation. If no one has any problems, we >can fit in the new words and go on to the next. I was about to make a similar suggestion. I'd like to get at least this one to John "Sev" Cook fairly quickly... ---------- 0463 - Sev Trek 1 Saul Epstein Sat, 23 May 1998 15:12:15 -0500 Well, the missing words have arrived! Here's the tentative working translation that I'm giving to John "Sev" Cook. G: qa en'^q'xetid eu'ip s'hi lahe, barfa? qa en'-^q'(xe))))))))))tid e---------u'ip s'--hi ? it--bo((PROGRESSIVE)ther INVISIBLE-thing you-ACCUSATIVE la----he barf-a PRESENT-LOCATIVE Barf-VOCATIVE "Is something bothering you, Barf? B: nirc th'^q'tsutid. s'nitsudroi qantca' lehe? nirc th'-^q'(tsu)))))tid. no I---bo((PERFECT)ther. s'--ni(tsu)))))droi qan--tca' le-he you-a((PERFECT)sk what-ABLATIVE PAST1-LOCATIVE "I'm not bothered. Why do you ask?" G: basro s'yulu. ba-----sro s'--yulu planar-sine you-forehead "You have a furrowed brow." B: its th'klingofwimic; aaz, s'iihoia. its th'-klingof--wimic a(((a)))))))))z MINOR PREMISE I---Klingoff-IDENTITY CON(INTENSIVE)CLUSION s'--i(((i)))))))))hoi-a you-foo(INTENSIVE)l---VOCATIVE "I am a Klingoff, with everything that implies, you fool!" I've created a GIF presenting this in a semi-idealized transcription for John to base his lettering on. It's on the web at http://www,jccc,net/~sepstein/vald/sev1,gif I think, in addition, that Rob is about to inundate us with words, so that will give us more to work with in the future... ---------- End Part 7 -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus "Surakri' ow'phacur the's'hi the's'cha'; the's'pharka the's'hi surakecha'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at