[101940] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] AFAIK never used in a sentence
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Thu Nov 5 10:31:00 2015
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun@gmail.com>, tlhIngan Hol mailing list
<tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:30:43 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJsF5hx87KS2HYj=KR+vzjdRk60obH7okRG8Ra2nR-f9A@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============7162938247476829088==
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_144673744284458809kthse_"
--_000_144673744284458809kthse_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> i would like to ask,what is the practical significance of the
> fact that a word may have been never used in sentence ;
> does this make it less "canon" ?
Not less canonical, but it can be less clear how the word should be used.
For example, the word {SIv} means "wonder" (verb), but it can be difficult=
to guess what the subject and object should be. How do you say "I wonder i=
f she is there." ?
Fortunately, we have a canonical example to go by:
{tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh 'e' vISIv.}
=3D "I wonder if you speak Klingon."
So, we know of at least one way in which the word SIv can be used. There ma=
y be other ways, too, but there is one that we know for sure. We can extrap=
olate from this to create a new sentence: {DaH pa' ghaHtaH 'e' vISIv.}
On the other hand, the word {HuS} ("hang") has never been used in a senten=
ce, so we don't know if it means "be hanging" or "hang something". For exam=
ple, if I want to say "I hung a sword on the wall.", would I say *tlhoy'Da=
q 'etlh vIHuSmoH.* or *tlhoy'Daq 'etlh vIHuS.* ?
A lot of people (myself included) think that the first option is the correc=
t one (using HuSmoH), but we won't know for sure until Marc Okrand has used=
it in a sentence.
________________________________
From: qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2015 16:14
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] AFAIK never used in a sentence
i have noticed that numerous times,at the discussion which follows the "wor=
d of the day" the following phrase comes up :
"..as far as i know,it (the word of the day) has never been used in a sente=
nce (by okrand).."
i would like to ask,what is the practical significance of the fact that a w=
ord may have been never used in sentence ; does this make it less "canon" ?
cpt. qunnoQ
--_000_144673744284458809kthse_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none"><!--P{margin-top:0;margin-b=
ottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#F=
FFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>> i would like to ask,what is the practical significance of the</p>
<p>> fact that a word may have been never used in sentence ;</p>
<p>> does this make it less "canon" ?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Not less canonical, but it can be less clear how the word should be used=
.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> For example, the word {SIv} means "wonder" (verb), but i=
t can be difficult to guess what the subject and object should be. How do y=
ou say "I wonder if she is there." ?</p>
<p>Fortunately, we have a canonical example to go by:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>{tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh 'e' vISIv.}</p>
<p>=3D "I wonder if you speak Klingon."</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So, we know of at least one way in which the word SIv can be used. There=
may be other ways, too, but there is one that we know for sure. We can ext=
rapolate from this to create a new sentence: {DaH pa' ghaHtaH 'e' vISIv.}</=
p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> On the other hand, the word {HuS} ("hang") has never bee=
n used in a sentence, so we don't know if it means "be hanging" o=
r "hang something". For example, if I want to say "I hung a =
sword on the wall.", would I say *tlhoy'Daq 'etlh vIHuSmoH.* or =
*tlhoy'Daq
'etlh vIHuS.* ?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style=3D"color: rgb(33, 33, 33);"><br>
A lot of people (myself included) think that the first option is the correc=
t one (using HuSmoH), but we won't know for sure until Marc Okrand has used=
it in a sentence.<br>
<br>
<hr tabindex=3D"-1" style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font style=3D"font-size:11pt" face=
=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> qunnoQ HoD <mihk=
oun@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 5, 2015 16:14<br>
<b>To:</b> tlhIngan Hol mailing list<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Tlhingan-hol] AFAIK never used in a sentence</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">i have noticed that numerous times,at the discussion which=
follows the "word of the day" the following phrase comes up :<br=
>
<br>
"..as far as i know,it (the word of the day) has never been used in a =
sentence (by okrand).."<br>
<br>
i would like to ask,what is the practical significance of the fact that a w=
ord may have been never used in sentence ; does this make it less "can=
on" ?<br>
<br>
cpt. qunnoQ<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_144673744284458809kthse_--
--===============7162938247476829088==
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
--===============7162938247476829088==--
