[98277] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Verbing objects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Fri Mar 28 12:42:09 2014
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:41:19 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20140328061656.a41e5a76f06d90ef255b5a241771595e.96b7b73490.wbe@email01.secureserver.net>
Cc: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
> It makes sense to me. {ghov} isn't glossed as "recognize a countenance,"
> it's just "recognize." I see no reason you can't recognize {'e'} "that" =
> as well as you can recognize {qamlIj} or {qablIj}.
I think you can recognize a statement, but to me the sentence =AB'e' vIghov=
.=BB suggests "I've heard/read/experienced that before", whereas when one s=
ays one recognizes a statement or fact in English, it usually means that on=
e is accepting, realizing or acknowledging it, regardless of previous exper=
ience.
(I agree with you, by the way, that =ABmaQoch 'e' wIlaj.=BB is a very good =
alternative.)
For example, taking the sentences
(1) "Einstein recognized Heisenberg's face."
and
(2) "Einstein was the first to recognize that time was relative."
I feel that the word "recognize" refers to two very separate concepts in th=
ese two sentences, and it would be a real stroke of luck if Klingon, like E=
nglish, uses the same word for them.
There is also another sense of the word:
(3) "The High Council has moved to recognize the new government of Krios Pr=
ime."
I could see =ABlaj=BB being used for both (2) and (3), but I'd only use =AB=
ghov=BB for (1).
> 28 mar 2014 kl. 14:17 skrev "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name>:
> =
> From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
>> For example, I'm not too crazy about using {ghov} with a sentence as
>> an object. The only canonical example of {ghov} (that I know of) is
>> {qamlIj vIghov.} from KGT, meaning "I recognize your foot." (though
>> it's probably meant to mean "I recognize your face.", spoken in the
>> Krotmag dialect). Does it make sense that the same verb that's used
>> to say you recognize something by its countenance would be used to say
>> you recognize the truth of a statement? To some, I'm sure, but to me
>> that's very strange.
> =
> It makes sense to me. {ghov} isn't glossed as "recognize a countenance,"
> it's just "recognize." I see no reason you can't recognize {'e'} "that" =
> as well as you can recognize {qamlIj} or {qablIj}.
> =
> -- =
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
> =
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
