[102377] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Qun qa'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Tue Nov 17 19:46:47 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:46:32 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CAFK8js1rdDxZVDvp7TjYR5FY9DW6txw0K--2p8BRMtLZex6+Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============5443544998490403709==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_2b72062a-5f1c-4651-99b8-8adf94d24aaf_"
--_2b72062a-5f1c-4651-99b8-8adf94d24aaf_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' SuStel=2C jatlh:
> ... You couldn't add it after the verb=2C either=2C
> because {wI'el je maH'e'} that would mean something like "*WE* enter it i=
n
> addition to some other thing we did."
Well=2C no. The example from ST6 shows that you can do this exactly to mean=
"WE enter it in addition to someone else entering it":
notlh veS=2C 'a tugh manotlhchoH je maH.
War is obsolete=2C as we are in danger of becoming.
That is=2C "IT is obsolete=2C and soon WE TOO will become obsolete." So it =
seems that {je} has potential scope over the verb=2C or any argument in the=
same verb phrase with which a contrast can be drawn. I'd have no problem w=
ith {HIvje'Daq HIq vIqang=3B balDaq HIq vIqang je}.
=20
jang ghunchu'wI'=2C jatlh:
> Uh=2C no. {je} is a noun conjunction=2C not an adverbial. What TKD
> actually says (in section 5.3. Conjunctions) is this:
> The noun conjunction {je} has an additional function: when it
> follows a verb=2C it means "also=2C too".
> {qaleghpu' je} "I also saw you=2C I saw you too"
(poD vay')
=20
> What it is *not* said to mean is "I saw (and did something else to) you."
ghunchu'wI'=2C you and I already had this debate some years ago. {{:) I rep=
roduce here our exchange from 2011:
bIjatlhpu':
> As TKD describes it in Section 5.3=2C {je} used this way is still a noun
> conjunction. {HIq tlhutlh je} "he drank liquor too" could mean either
> "he and others drank liquor" or "he drank liquor and something else".
> The null prefix suggest to me that the former meaning is unlikely. But
> it absolutely does not mean "also=2C he drank liquor."
qajangpu' jIH=2C jIjatlhpu':
> With respect=2C yes=2C that's exactly what it means. SkyBox card SP2 has =
the
> following text describing the tlhIngan may' taj:
> ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.
> The bladelets protect the hand. They can also cut.
> (My translation=2C because the English version on the card is quite free.=
)
chojangpu'=2C bIjatlhpu':
> I've always read the Klingon text as meaning "They too can cut." That
> is=2C the main blade cuts=2C and so do the small side ones. I believe the
> English supports my interpretation=2C referring to "another set of
> cutting edges."
qajangpu'=2C jIjatlhpu':
> Similarly=2C Marc said in an MSN posting back in 1996:
> qep'a' wejDIchDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'. ghoHtaH je. tIv'eghtaH
> je.
> [At the third qep'a' Klingon students will speak. Also=2C they will learn=
.
> Also=2C they will enjoy themselves.]
chojangpu'=2C bIjatlhpu':
> Is that your translation too? I'm certain the note was posted several
> months *after* qep'a' wejDIch=2C so the future tense is not appropriate.
> It also substitutes "learn" for "argue". But the Klingon does seem to
> contradict the "absolutely does not mean" I wrote above. The last
> sentence in particular totally wipes out my uneasiness about
> {Hotlh'egh je}.
> Assuming that the note is accurately reported (and that its usage
> wasn't identified later as a silly mistake)=2C I withdraw my objection.
For my part=2C I analyse {je} as two distinct=2C but related=2C lexemes. On=
e is a bog-standard noun conjunction. One is a homophonous irregular adverb=
ial (though no doubt derived from the first)=2C which=2C like {neH} and {ja=
y'}=2C doesn't follow the general rules of adverbials elsewhere.
QeS 'utlh
=
--_2b72062a-5f1c-4651-99b8-8adf94d24aaf_
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' SuStel=2C jatlh:<br>&g=
t=3B ... You couldn't add it after the verb=2C either=2C<br><div>>=3B bec=
ause {wI'el je maH'e'} that would mean something like "*WE* enter it in<br>=
>=3B addition to some other thing we did."<br><br>Well=2C no. The example=
from ST6 shows that you can do this exactly to mean "WE enter it in additi=
on to someone else entering it":<br><br>notlh veS=2C 'a tugh manotlhchoH je=
maH.<br>War is obsolete=2C as we are in danger of becoming.<br><br>That is=
=2C "IT is obsolete=2C and soon WE TOO will become obsolete." So it seems t=
hat {je} has potential scope over the verb=2C or any argument in the same v=
erb phrase with which a contrast can be drawn. I'd have no problem with {HI=
vje'Daq HIq vIqang=3B balDaq HIq vIqang je}.<br> =3B<br>jang ghunchu'wI=
'=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B Uh=2C no. {je} is a noun conjunction=2C not an adverb=
ial. What TKD<br>>=3B actually says (in section 5.3. Conjunctions) is thi=
s:<br>>=3B The noun conjunction {je} has an additional function: when it<=
br>>=3B follows a verb=2C it means "also=2C too".<br>>=3B {qaleghpu' =
je} "I also saw you=2C I saw you too"<br><br>(poD vay')<br> =3B<br>>=
=3B What it is *not* said to mean is "I saw (and did something else to) you=
."<br><br>ghunchu'wI'=2C you and I already had this debate some years ago. =
{{:) I reproduce here our exchange from 2011:<br><br>bIjatlhpu':<br>>=3B =
As TKD describes it in Section 5.3=2C {je} used this way is still a noun<br=
>>=3B conjunction. {HIq tlhutlh je} "he drank liquor too" could mean eith=
er<br>>=3B "he and others drank liquor" or "he drank liquor and something=
else".<br>>=3B The null prefix suggest to me that the former meaning is =
unlikely. But<br>>=3B it absolutely does not mean "also=2C he drank liquo=
r."<br><br>qajangpu' jIH=2C jIjatlhpu':<br>>=3B With respect=2C yes=2C th=
at's exactly what it means. SkyBox card SP2 has the<br>>=3B following tex=
t describing the tlhIngan may' taj:<br>>=3B ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH =
je.<br>>=3B The bladelets protect the hand. They can also cut.<br>>=3B =
(My translation=2C because the English version on the card is quite free.)<=
br><br>chojangpu'=2C bIjatlhpu':<br>>=3B I've always read the Klingon tex=
t as meaning "They too can cut." That<br>>=3B is=2C the main blade cuts=
=2C and so do the small side ones. I believe the<br>>=3B English supports=
my interpretation=2C referring to "another set of<br>>=3B cutting edges.=
"<br><br>qajangpu'=2C jIjatlhpu':<br>>=3B Similarly=2C Marc said in an MS=
N posting back in 1996:<br>>=3B qep'a' wejDIchDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol H=
aDwI'pu'. ghoHtaH je. tIv'eghtaH<br>>=3B je.<br>>=3B [At the third qep'=
a' Klingon students will speak. Also=2C they will learn.<br>>=3B Also=2C =
they will enjoy themselves.]<br><br>chojangpu'=2C bIjatlhpu':<br>>=3B Is =
that your translation too? I'm certain the note was posted several<br>>=
=3B months *after* qep'a' wejDIch=2C so the future tense is not appropriate=
.<br>>=3B It also substitutes "learn" for "argue". But the Klingon does s=
eem to<br>>=3B contradict the "absolutely does not mean" I wrote above. T=
he last<br>>=3B sentence in particular totally wipes out my uneasiness ab=
out<br>>=3B {Hotlh'egh je}.<br>>=3B Assuming that the note is accuratel=
y reported (and that its usage<br>>=3B wasn't identified later as a silly=
mistake)=2C I withdraw my objection.<br><br>For my part=2C I analyse {je} =
as two distinct=2C but related=2C lexemes. One is a bog-standard noun conju=
nction. One is a homophonous irregular adverbial (though no doubt derived f=
rom the first)=2C which=2C like {neH} and {jay'}=2C doesn't follow the gene=
ral rules of adverbials elsewhere.<br><br>QeS 'utlh<br></div> </=
div></body>
</html>=
--_2b72062a-5f1c-4651-99b8-8adf94d24aaf_--
--===============5443544998490403709==
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
--===============5443544998490403709==--
