[102569] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Tue Nov 24 08:21:21 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:21:05 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmPQ1iBv1tiboa7W4Qv9kmSmHo9YXPe8eVc0JN6G+JPQZw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============5926911524245382745==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_4a1dc9bd-5f94-4b4e-8d9f-71098aec56fd_"
--_4a1dc9bd-5f94-4b4e-8d9f-71098aec56fd_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jatlhpu' De'vID:
> If {SoHvaD quv vIja'} =3D {quv qaja'} and {jIHvaD quv Daja'} =3D {quv
> choja'}=2C can these be combined using the prefix trick into *{quv
> maja'chuq}? After all=2C we can combine {qaqIp} and {choqIp} into
> {maqIpchuq}.
vIjangpu' jIH=2C jIjatlh:
> There are a lot of problems with that idea. Firstly=2C what would the
> non-prefix-tricked version of this be?
jang je De'vID=2C jatlh:
> {maHvaD quv wIja'}
Ah=2C right. Thank you for the clarification. Such a sentence still seems s=
omewhat weird to me=2C in the same way as ??"I look at me in the mirror" do=
es. But we don't know anything at all about reflexives outside of the sente=
nce core in Klingon and so that may just be an English bias talking.
jIjatlhqa'pu' jIH:
> Secondly=2C the prefix trick can only *add* an object to the verb prefix=
=2C
> not delete one.
jangqa' De'vID:
> The object isn't deleted here=2C it's hidden by {-chuq}.
> {SoHvaD quv vIja'} =3D {quv qaja'}
> "I-tell-it honour for-the-benefit-of-you" =3D "I-tell-you honour"
> {chaHvaD quv wIja'} =3D {quv DIja'}
> "we-tell-it honour for-the-benefit-of-them" =3D "we-tell-them honour"
> {maHvaD quv wIja'} =3D *{quv maja'chuq}
> "We-tell-it honour for-the-benefit-of-us" =3D "We-tell-each-other honour"
> The prefix trick changes the verb prefix. When you say that it "add"s
> an object=2C I think you mean it changes "I-it (for you)" to "I-you it"=
=2C
> right?
Yes=2C that's right=2C that it brings a new argument into the argument stru=
cture of the verb rather than taking one out. I don't think the way I expre=
ssed my thoughts in this point was quite accurate and I apologise for that.
taH:
> But the same thing is happening in my example: it changes "we-it
> (for us)" to "we-us it"=2C except that "we-us" is expressed as {ma-} +
> {-chuq}.
I suppose that last is where it falls down for me. I don't see {ma-} + {-ch=
uq} as "we-us" as such. While it's true that {-chuq} influences the verb pr=
efixes=2C the way I understand it is that it does so only indirectly=2C by =
changing the verb's action from "do X" to "do X to each other" such that th=
e only prefixes that then make practical sense are the ones in which there'=
s no object: to pilfer SuStel's terminology=2C "we-us" is equivalent to {ma=
-} + {-chuq} only semantically=2C not morphosyntactically. Though again=2C =
this is just the way *I* understand it.
jIH:
> Thirdly=2C {maqIpchuq} doesn't mean the same thing as {qaqIp 'ej choqIp}.
> There need not be any second person involved at all in {maqIpchuq}=2C for
> that matter.
De'vID:
> I think what you're saying here is that {maH} can mean "he and I" or
> "she and I" and not just "you and I".
Yes=2C that's right. I understood the way you were putting it=2C but it jus=
t seemed to me that=2C to take a maths metaphor=2C the terms weren't balanc=
ed on both sides of the equation - it wasn't a true equivalence.
taH:
> You're right that Klingon "we" can be either inclusive or exclusive=2C
> but I was just using an example. We could have just as easily carried
> out the analysis with {jIHvaD} and {ghaHvaD}=2C etc. Maybe it was
> confusing to break up "we" as "you and I" in my example=2C and I
> should've just done everything as {maH}.
Fair enough.
jIH:
> Finally=2C combining {qaqIp} and {choqIp} is not the prefix trick anyway=
=2C
> so talking about combining concepts "using the prefix trick" just doesn't
> make sense at all to me. I honestly just don't understand it.
De'vID:
> Does the transformation of {maHvaD quv wIja'} into {quv maja'chuq}
> make more sense?
It still doesn't work for me=2C but I do understand better how you got ther=
e.
QeS 'utlh
=
--_4a1dc9bd-5f94-4b4e-8d9f-71098aec56fd_
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'>jatlhpu' De'vID:<br>>=3B If {S=
oHvaD quv vIja'} =3D {quv qaja'} and {jIHvaD quv Daja'} =3D {quv<br>>=3B =
choja'}=2C can these be combined using the prefix trick into *{quv<br>>=
=3B maja'chuq}? After all=2C we can combine {qaqIp} and {choqIp} into<br>&g=
t=3B {maqIpchuq}.<br><br>vIjangpu' jIH=2C jIjatlh:<br>>=3B There are a lo=
t of problems with that idea. Firstly=2C what would the<br>>=3B non-prefi=
x-tricked version of this be?<br><br>jang je De'vID=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B {ma=
HvaD quv wIja'}<br><br>Ah=2C right. Thank you for the clarification. Such a=
sentence still seems somewhat weird to me=2C in the same way as ??"I look =
at me in the mirror" does. But we don't know anything at all about reflexiv=
es outside of the sentence core in Klingon and so that may just be an Engli=
sh bias talking.<br><br>jIjatlhqa'pu' jIH:<br>>=3B Secondly=2C the prefix=
trick can only *add* an object to the verb prefix=2C<br>>=3B not delete =
one.<br><br>jangqa' De'vID:<br>>=3B The object isn't deleted here=2C it's=
hidden by {-chuq}.<br>>=3B {SoHvaD quv vIja'} =3D {quv qaja'}<br>>=3B =
"I-tell-it honour for-the-benefit-of-you" =3D "I-tell-you honour"<br>>=3B=
{chaHvaD quv wIja'} =3D {quv DIja'}<br>>=3B "we-tell-it honour for-the-b=
enefit-of-them" =3D "we-tell-them honour"<br>>=3B {maHvaD quv wIja'} =3D =
*{quv maja'chuq}<br>>=3B "We-tell-it honour for-the-benefit-of-us" =3D "W=
e-tell-each-other honour"<br>>=3B The prefix trick changes the verb prefi=
x. When you say that it "add"s<br>>=3B an object=2C I think you mean it c=
hanges "I-it (for you)" to "I-you it"=2C<br>>=3B right?<br><br>Yes=2C tha=
t's right=2C that it brings a new argument into the argument structure of t=
he verb rather than taking one out. I don't think the way I expressed my th=
oughts in this point was quite accurate and I apologise for that.<br><br>ta=
H:<br>>=3B But the same thing is happening in my example: it changes "we-=
it<br>>=3B (for us)" to "we-us it"=2C except that "we-us" is expressed as=
{ma-} +<br>>=3B {-chuq}.<br><br>I suppose that last is where it falls do=
wn for me. I don't see {ma-} + {-chuq} as "we-us" as such. While it's true =
that {-chuq} influences the verb prefixes=2C the way I understand it is tha=
t it does so only indirectly=2C by changing the verb's action from "do X" t=
o "do X to each other" such that the only prefixes that then make practical=
sense are the ones in which there's no object: to pilfer SuStel's terminol=
ogy=2C "we-us" is equivalent to {ma-} + {-chuq} only semantically=2C not mo=
rphosyntactically. Though again=2C this is just the way *I* understand it.<=
br><br>jIH:<br>>=3B Thirdly=2C {maqIpchuq} doesn't mean the same thing as=
{qaqIp 'ej choqIp}.<br>>=3B There need not be any second person involved=
at all in {maqIpchuq}=2C for<br>>=3B that matter.<br><br>De'vID:<br>>=
=3B I think what you're saying here is that {maH} can mean "he and I" or<br=
>>=3B "she and I" and not just "you and I".<br><br>Yes=2C that's right. I=
understood the way you were putting it=2C but it just seemed to me that=2C=
to take a maths metaphor=2C the terms weren't balanced on both sides of th=
e equation - it wasn't a true equivalence.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B You're rig=
ht that Klingon "we" can be either inclusive or exclusive=2C<br>>=3B but =
I was just using an example. We could have just as easily carried<br>>=3B=
out the analysis with {jIHvaD} and {ghaHvaD}=2C etc. Maybe it was<br>>=
=3B confusing to break up "we" as "you and I" in my example=2C and I<br>>=
=3B should've just done everything as {maH}.<br><br>Fair enough.<br><br>jIH=
:<br>>=3B Finally=2C combining {qaqIp} and {choqIp} is not the prefix tri=
ck anyway=2C<br>>=3B so talking about combining concepts "using the prefi=
x trick" just doesn't<br>>=3B make sense at all to me. I honestly just do=
n't understand it.<br><br>De'vID:<br>>=3B Does the transformation of {maH=
vaD quv wIja'} into {quv maja'chuq}<br>>=3B make more sense?<br><br>It st=
ill doesn't work for me=2C but I do understand better how you got there.<br=
><br>QeS 'utlh<br> </div></body>
</html>=
--_4a1dc9bd-5f94-4b4e-8d9f-71098aec56fd_--
--===============5926911524245382745==
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
--===============5926911524245382745==--
