[112360] in tlhIngan-Hol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] X which are not Y

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Fri Mar 22 16:00:51 2019

X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 16:00:39 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <b592a4f4-81c9-17f0-ade7-c4757fefff14@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org


--===============6809398225444181654==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_73F81730-CBE0-4E7A-8226-CE332745FA5E"


--Apple-Mail=_73F81730-CBE0-4E7A-8226-CE332745FA5E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

I was completely on board with this, until I thought about it a little =
deeper. Then it got weird, until I though even deeper, and now, it all =
makes sense, and I completely agree. You can skip the rest of this, =
unless you are interested in a thought experiment.

In terms of grammatical construction, yes, it appears to be completely =
correct, following all the grammatical rules we know. In this case =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is doing two things:

1. It is doing what it always does in sentences like {tlhIngan ghaH =
Qanqor=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99}. We can argue about what the {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=
=99} is doing there, but we can=E2=80=99t really argue about whether or =
not it should be there. It just should. That=E2=80=99s how this kind of =
sentence always works. It=E2=80=99s like {-tu=E2=80=99lu=E2=80=99}. You =
can=E2=80=99t mess with it. Just do it. Don=E2=80=99t think too much =
about it.

2. It is marking the explicit head noun of a relative clause when the =
verb defining the relative clause has both a subject and an object. =
{puq=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 qIppu=E2=80=99bogh loD Sov be=E2=80=99.} The =
woman knows the child who was hit by the man. {put qIppu=E2=80=99bogh =
loD=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 Sov be=E2=80=99.} The woman knows the man who hit =
the child. Fine so far.

Toss these two into a barrel, toss in some seasonings, and you get =
{yIHmey bIHbe=E2=80=99bogh Ha=E2=80=99DIbaHmey=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 =
vImaS.} I prefer animals which are not tribbles. No problem.

Hmmm.

Okay, I completely agree that this is correct, now that I=E2=80=99ve =
fully explored what is going on here.

The issue is that the underlying relative clause is false as a main =
clause =E2=80=94 {yIHmey bIHbe=E2=80=99 Ha=E2=80=99DIbaHmey=E2=80=99e=E2=80=
=99}. Animals are not tribbles.

Well, most of them are not tribbles, but=E2=80=A6

What is a subset of what?

Going back to {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99}, the final noun =
with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is a subset of the first noun, or is the =
unity of the first noun, as in {SoSwI=E2=80=99 ghaH =E2=80=98elva=E2=80=99=
=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99}. You never say {Qanqor ghaH tlhIngan=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99=
} unless you are speaking about a specific Klingon who happens to be =
Krankor. The word with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is never the larger set of =
the two.

But when you negate the pronoun-as-verb-to-be, in a relative clause you =
reverse roles of set and subset. Clearly {Ha=E2=80=99DIbaHmey} is the =
set, and {yIHmey} is the subset. You are negating the subset from the =
set, resulting in =E2=80=9Cthe other subset=E2=80=9D. In other words, =
there=E2=80=99s a subset of animals that are tribbles and a different =
subset of animals that are not tribbles.

My confusion was that I wanted to ask how you would express the other =
side of the two options in example 2 above without thinking it through. =
At first glimpse, you can=E2=80=99t move the {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}, so =
you=E2=80=99d have to reverse the two nouns=E2=80=A6 blah, blah, blah, =
but what would I be saying? I prefer tribbles that are not animals?

But all tribbles ARE animals. Huh?

Riiiiight.

Okay, so I slowly come to understand the oddness of a negative =
=E2=80=9Cto-be=E2=80=9D relative clause at this new, deeper level.

charghwI=E2=80=99 vaghnerya=E2=80=99ngan

rInpa=E2=80=99 bomnIS be=E2=80=99=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99 pI=E2=80=99.




> On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
> On 3/22/2019 11:47 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry =
<chransberry@gmail.com <mailto:chransberry@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", =
how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* =
would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?=20
>>=20
>> Why wouldn't it be grammatical? Pronouns-as-copula can take -be': loD =
Quch jIHbe'. They can take -bogh: paq'batlh has ghaHtaHbogh. yIHmey =
bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e' seems completely fine to me.
> Note that the -'e' is not optional here.
>=20
> Not only is it grammatical, but I don't see any reason not to say it =
either, if it best expresses what you mean.
>=20
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name =
<http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org


--Apple-Mail=_73F81730-CBE0-4E7A-8226-CE332745FA5E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">I was completely on board with this, until I thought about it =
a little deeper. Then it got weird, until I though even deeper, and now, =
it all makes sense, and I completely agree. You can skip the rest of =
this, unless you are interested in a thought experiment.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">In terms of grammatical =
construction, yes, it appears to be completely correct, following all =
the grammatical rules we know. In this case {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is =
doing two things:</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">1. It is doing what it always does in sentences like =
{tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99}. We can argue about what the =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is doing there, but we can=E2=80=99t really argue =
about whether or not it should be there. It just should. That=E2=80=99s =
how this kind of sentence always works. It=E2=80=99s like {-tu=E2=80=99lu=E2=
=80=99}. You can=E2=80=99t mess with it. Just do it. Don=E2=80=99t think =
too much about it.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">2. It is marking the explicit head noun of a relative clause =
when the verb defining the relative clause has both a subject and an =
object. {puq=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 qIppu=E2=80=99bogh loD Sov be=E2=80=99.} =
The woman knows the child who was hit by the man. {put qIppu=E2=80=99bogh =
loD=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 Sov be=E2=80=99.} The woman knows the man who hit =
the child. Fine so far.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Toss these two into a barrel, toss in some seasonings, and =
you get {yIHmey bIHbe=E2=80=99bogh Ha=E2=80=99DIbaHmey=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 =
vImaS.} I prefer animals which are not tribbles. No problem.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Hmmm.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Okay, I completely agree =
that this is correct, now that I=E2=80=99ve fully explored what is going =
on here.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The =
issue is that the underlying relative clause is false as a main clause =
=E2=80=94 {yIHmey bIHbe=E2=80=99 Ha=E2=80=99DIbaHmey=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99}. =
Animals are not tribbles.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Well, most of them are not tribbles, but=E2=80=A6</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">What is a subset of =
what?</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Going =
back to {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99}, the final noun with =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is a subset of the first noun, or is the unity of =
the first noun, as in {SoSwI=E2=80=99 ghaH =E2=80=98elva=E2=80=99=E2=80=99=
e=E2=80=99}. You never say {Qanqor ghaH tlhIngan=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99} =
unless you are speaking about a specific Klingon who happens to be =
Krankor. The word with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is never the larger set of =
the two.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">But =
when you negate the pronoun-as-verb-to-be, in a relative clause you =
reverse roles of set and subset. Clearly {Ha=E2=80=99DIbaHmey} is the =
set, and {yIHmey} is the subset. You are negating the subset from the =
set, resulting in =E2=80=9Cthe other subset=E2=80=9D. In other words, =
there=E2=80=99s a subset of animals that are tribbles and a different =
subset of animals that are not tribbles.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">My confusion was that I wanted to ask =
how you would express the other side of the two options in example 2 =
above without thinking it through. At first glimpse, you can=E2=80=99t =
move the {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}, so you=E2=80=99d have to reverse the =
two nouns=E2=80=A6 blah, blah, blah, but what would I be saying? I =
prefer tribbles that are not animals?</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">But all tribbles ARE animals. =
Huh?</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Riiiiight.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Okay, so I slowly come to understand the oddness of a =
negative =E2=80=9Cto-be=E2=80=9D relative clause at this new, deeper =
level.</div><br class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: =
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=3D""><div =
style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: =
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: =
none;">charghwI=E2=80=99 vaghnerya=E2=80=99ngan<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">rInpa=E2=80=99 bomnIS be=E2=80=99=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99 =
pI=E2=80=99.</div><div style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, =
0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: =
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; =
text-decoration: none;" class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>

<div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:52 AM, SuStel &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" =
class=3D"">sustel@trimboli.name</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D"">
 =20
    <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUTF-8" class=3D"">
 =20
  <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D"">
    <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 3/22/2019 11:47 AM, nIqolay Q =
wrote:<br class=3D"">
    </div>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:CAG84SOsfzMDbh6iosxaZp5HQ_70kR45YfMjcoMt5zOv8-e-wNw@mail.gmail=
.com" class=3D"">
      <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 =
PM
        Christa Hansberry &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:chransberry@gmail.com" =
moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"">chransberry@gmail.com</a>&gt; =
wrote:<br class=3D"">
      </div>
      <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px
        0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
        <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">
          <div dir=3D"auto" class=3D"">If I wanted to say, for example, =
"animals
            which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think
            *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be
            grammatical... but is there a good way to say it? <br =
class=3D"">
          </div>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <div class=3D""><br class=3D"">
      </div>
      <div style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" =
class=3D"gmail_default">Why wouldn't it be grammatical?
        Pronouns-as-copula can take <b class=3D"">-be'</b>: <b =
class=3D"">loD Quch jIHbe'<i class=3D"">.</i></b>
        They can take <b class=3D"">-bogh</b>: paq'batlh has <b =
class=3D"">ghaHtaHbogh</b>.
        <b class=3D"">yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e'</b> seems =
completely fine to
        me.</div>
    </blockquote><p class=3D"">Note that the <b class=3D"">-'e'</b> is =
not optional here.</p><p class=3D"">Not only is it grammatical, but I =
don't see any reason not to say
      it either, if it best expresses what you mean.<br class=3D"">
    </p>
    <pre class=3D"moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20
SuStel
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" =
href=3D"http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
  </div>

_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">tlhIngan-Hol=
 mailing list<br class=3D""><a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" =
class=3D"">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br =
class=3D"">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_73F81730-CBE0-4E7A-8226-CE332745FA5E--

--===============6809398225444181654==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

--===============6809398225444181654==--

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post