[102889] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Religious terminology
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Dec 4 13:40:28 2015
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:40:27 -0500
In-Reply-To: <E716FAEA-E5A1-44A2-86C6-3FD81CD7A232@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 12/4/2015 1:25 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> HoDpu'=92e=92 nIv Qanqor.
>
> It basically means, =93Krankor is superior (while you think about
> captains).=94 So, you might translate that is =93Krankor is superior among
> captains.=94 Okrand explains this as a =93topicalizer=94, suggesting that=
you
> are presenting the topic of the sentence, but given some of the canon
> examples, there are those here who strongly believe that he picked the
> wrong word, even though he apparently picked the RIGHT word when he
> picked =93perfective=94 for {-pu=92}, even as his description of {-pu=92}=
didn=92t
> really convey what perfective apparently means.
It's not the same thing. {-'e'} is described in TKD as a topicalizer, =
marking the topic of the sentence. The examples of its use in TKD that =
claim it's a topicalizer shows its use as emphasis, which is a different =
thing. TKD does not, I think, have a true example of {-'e'} as topic, =
though we have at least one in canon.
Meanwhile, {-pu'} is explained correctly by Okrand, but simplistically. =
"An action is completed" is what TKD says, and it is what perfective =
means. For years we tried to add the idea of "... before the time =
context," which does not appear in TKD, and which does not describe the =
perfective.
By the way, qunnoQ, using {-'e'} to mark to head noun of a relative =
clause is optional. Do it if you want to clarify whether the head noun =
is the subject or object of the relative clause.
Here's a canonical example of a relative clause without the optional {-'e'}:
Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj
a day without secrets is like a night without stars
If you wanted to use the optional {-'e'} on both relative clauses, it =
would look like this:
Hov ghajbe'bogh ram'e' rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj'e'
Sometimes it is not important to disambiguate. Sometimes it is helpful =
not to. I once write a song called {yIH ghupbogh be' qan} and I liked =
the ambiguity: is it "the old woman who swallowed a tribble" or is it =
"the tribble which the old woman swallowed"? Does it matter?
(If I were writing it today, I'd have said {yIH ghuppu'bogh be' qan}.
-- =
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
