[98270] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Verbing objects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bellerophon, modeler)
Fri Mar 28 00:18:42 2014
In-Reply-To: <20140327112225.a41e5a76f06d90ef255b5a241771595e.b8234b64a0.wbe@email01.secureserver.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:18:09 -0400
From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============8765637501607421594==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1139c63240a53404f5a2fd65
--001a1139c63240a53404f5a2fd65
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:22 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying this is a grammatical proof of anything, just that we
> might use it to help us English-addled people try to figure out whether
> an object makes sense with the given gloss.
>
No one should condone bad Klingon grammar, but if usage isn't settled,
perhaps it's "up for grabs;" that is, decided by Klingon speakers arriving
at a consensus over time. Some usage will surely be rejected by most
speakers, and some accepted. Maltz gets the last word.
As for your sentence-as-object example, I think it's flawed. If we
> assume that {Qoch} can take an object, then I interpret {maHIvrup 'e'
> wIQoch jIH matlh je} as "Maltz and I (both) disagree that we are ready
> to attack." In other words, we both think we're not ready to attack;
> we're not disagreeing with each other. Perhaps to disagree with each
> other we need to say {maQochchuq}, but then we obviously can't add an
> {'e'} object to that sentence.
>
Agreed--I was aiming for one ambiguity, and accidentally either created
another or prevented the intended interpretation.
> Like I said, if we give up a strict interpretation of our English
> glosses, it becomes difficult to decide on proper subjects and objects.
> But I think that might just be the boat we're in.
>
Not a bad situation, really. Like trading a foil for a bat'leth. Handling
it teaches the user, first, that the bat'leth isn't a foil, and second, how
it can be handled effectively. I heard someone else make a similar
comparison before--maybe Qov.
~'eD
--
My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog: http://bellerophon.blog.com/
--001a1139c63240a53404f5a2fd65
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:22 PM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto=
:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span=
> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'm not saying this is a grammatical proof of anything, just that we<br=
>
might use it to help us English-addled people try to figure out whether<br>
an object makes sense with the given gloss.<br></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</di=
v><div>No one should condone bad Klingon grammar, but if usage isn't se=
ttled, perhaps it's "up for grabs;" that is, decided by Kling=
on speakers arriving at a consensus over time. Some usage will surely be re=
jected by most speakers, and some accepted. Maltz gets the last word.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As for your sentence-as-object example, I think it's flawed. If we<br>
assume that {Qoch} can take an object, then I interpret {maHIvrup 'e=
9;<br>
wIQoch jIH matlh je} as "Maltz and I (both) disagree that we are ready=
<br>
to attack." In other words, we both think we're not ready to attac=
k;<br>
we're not disagreeing with each other. Perhaps to disagree with each<br=
>
other we need to say {maQochchuq}, but then we obviously can't add an<b=
r>
{'e'} object to that sentence.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
Agreed--I was aiming for one ambiguity, and accidentally either created ano=
ther or prevented the intended interpretation.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Like I said, if we give up a strict interpretation of our English<br>
glosses, it becomes difficult to decide on proper subjects and objects.<br>
But I think that might just be the boat we're in.<br></blockquote><div>=
<br></div><div>Not a bad situation, really. Like trading a foil for a bat&#=
39;leth. Handling it teaches the user, first, that=C2=A0the bat'leth is=
n't a foil, and second, how it can be handled effectively. I heard some=
one else make a similar comparison before--maybe Qov.</div>
<div><br></div><div>~'eD</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br>My modeling b=
log:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http:=
//bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon-m=
odeler.blogspot.com/</a><br>My other modeling blog:=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http:/=
/bellerophon.blog.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon.blog.com/</a><=
br>
</div></div>
--001a1139c63240a53404f5a2fd65--
--===============8765637501607421594==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============8765637501607421594==--
