[101958] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] povjajwIj
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Thu Nov 5 23:47:40 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 14:47:24 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmN6MTkEnwVZuXH7WmfkJb4O7fehXWyevr9fDYv2xbvT0g@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============5479610542846228579==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_4e0f626c-9091-4879-b546-2584b58e9fb1_"
--_4e0f626c-9091-4879-b546-2584b58e9fb1_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' De'vID=2C jatlh:
> {juH vIchegh} 'e' vImaS. There's some contradiction in the canon about
> how to specify the destination of {chegh}. But this was clarified in
> this email:
> http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-07-19b-email.txt
> {juHDaq jIchegh} is ambiguous and can mean either "I return home" or
> "I return at home (I return somewhere=2C while inside my house)".
vIjangpu' jIH=2C jIjatlh:
> Not quite. {juHDaq jIchegh} isn't actually ambiguous=2C and means only th=
e
> latter: "I return=2C while inside my house". For "I return home" (that is=
=2C "I
> return *to* the house")=2C the sentence must actually be either {juH vIch=
egh}
> or {juHDaq vIchegh}=2C in both instances with the pronominal prefix {vI-}=
.
> With verbs of motion like {chegh} and {jaH} and {'el}=2C the pronominal p=
refix
> is the important part in disambiguating the meaning (use of the superfluo=
us
> {-Daq} is a marked but grammatical variant in the {vIchegh} form).
jang je De'vID=2C jatlh:
> According to that article=2C you're right. But as I said=2C there's some
> contradiction in the canon.
> In Power Klingon=2C we have {ghorgh pa'wIjDaq jIchegh?} (not {vIchegh})
> and {naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?} (not {wIjaH}). Maybe others will
> be able to come up with other examples from canon.
The first is from CK=2C but yes=2C a good point well taken.
The concern for me here is more that we have an explicit explanation from M=
arc of what the rule is. If that exists=2C I feel we should treat that as t=
he prescriptive model to follow when composing our own Klingon=2C and since=
qunnoQ is a relative beginner (all respect intended=2C qunnoQ!)=2C now's t=
he time to work on best practice. We know canon doesn't always quite follow=
the prescriptive rules - {'e' reH lunIDtaH} from S26 is a perfect example =
of that. The other thing on my mind was I just wanted to let qunnoQ know th=
at {juHDaq vIchegh} is=2C though counterintuitive on its face=2C also a per=
fectly fine option.
QeS 'utlh
=
--_4e0f626c-9091-4879-b546-2584b58e9fb1_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>ghItlhpu' De'vID=2C jatlh:<br>&g=
t=3B {juH vIchegh} 'e' vImaS. There's some contradiction in the canon about=
<br><div>>=3B how to specify the destination of {chegh}. But this was cla=
rified in<br>>=3B this email:<br>>=3B http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-=
07-19b-email.txt<br>>=3B {juHDaq jIchegh} is ambiguous and can mean eithe=
r "I return home" or<br>>=3B "I return at home (I return somewhere=2C whi=
le inside my house)".<br><br>vIjangpu' jIH=2C jIjatlh:<br>>=3B Not quite.=
{juHDaq jIchegh} isn't actually ambiguous=2C and means only the<br>>=3B =
latter: "I return=2C while inside my house". For "I return home" (that is=
=2C "I<br>>=3B return *to* the house")=2C the sentence must actually be e=
ither {juH vIchegh}<br>>=3B or {juHDaq vIchegh}=2C in both instances with=
the pronominal prefix {vI-}.<br>>=3B With verbs of motion like {chegh} a=
nd {jaH} and {'el}=2C the pronominal prefix<br>>=3B is the important part=
in disambiguating the meaning (use of the superfluous<br>>=3B {-Daq} is =
a marked but grammatical variant in the {vIchegh} form).<br><br>jang je De'=
vID=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B According to that article=2C you're right. But as I=
said=2C there's some<br>>=3B contradiction in the canon.<br>>=3B In Po=
wer Klingon=2C we have {ghorgh pa'wIjDaq jIchegh?} (not {vIchegh})<br>>=
=3B and {naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?} (not {wIjaH}). Maybe others will<=
br>>=3B be able to come up with other examples from canon.<br><br>The fir=
st is from CK=2C but yes=2C a good point well taken.<br><br>The concern for=
me here is more that we have an explicit explanation from Marc of what the=
rule is. If that exists=2C I feel we should treat that as the prescriptive=
model to follow when composing our own Klingon=2C and since qunnoQ is a re=
lative beginner (all respect intended=2C qunnoQ!)=2C now's the time to work=
on best practice. We know canon doesn't always quite follow the prescripti=
ve rules - {'e' reH lunIDtaH} from S26 is a perfect example of that. The ot=
her thing on my mind was I just wanted to let qunnoQ know that {juHDaq vIch=
egh} is=2C though counterintuitive on its face=2C also a perfectly fine opt=
ion.<br><br>QeS 'utlh<br></div> </div></body>
</html>=
--_4e0f626c-9091-4879-b546-2584b58e9fb1_--
--===============5479610542846228579==
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
--===============5479610542846228579==--
