[108434] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] ghorgh and nuqDaq next to nouns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Dec 16 09:28:55 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:28:21 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cLz8k0_=e63QzPCepnkDG5jzQp9nAdmE8zr5V=gmHzXMg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============7266144137362051880==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------D9AB4F150FE32F55319A2DBF"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D9AB4F150FE32F55319A2DBF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 12/16/2016 9:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> but if I write something which doesn't violate a rule, why dismiss it
> if okrand never used it ? who can argue that okrand has used every
> possible combination in klingon, so that if what I write doesn't fall
> into these combinations, then it is wrong ?
There's not violating a rule, and then there's making up a new rule.
You're trying to construct a sentence whose grammar doesn't follow from
what we've been given, but which does mimic English grammar. This is a
strong sign that you're trying to follow the rules of English to
construct Klingon sentences.
If you try to make a sentence using a rule you made up, even one which
doesn't seem to violate any of Okrand's rules, we're going to demand to
see some justification. This is why I tell you, when you ask why can't
we say **pawpu' nuq Duj*/what ship has arrived?/, that Okrand hasn't
created a rule that says *nuq* acts like /which?,/ and he's never
constructed a sentence that acted that way. Those are the two ways we
learn the rules of Klingon: Okrand says "this is a rule," or we deduce
the rules from Okrand's examples.
*nuq* goes in the place the answer would occupy. But if it's part of a
noun-noun construction it the answer doesn't replace the entire
noun-noun. If the answer were *pawpu' 'entepray',* what I've done is
replace **nuq Duj**,* not just *nuq,* with the answer. And there's no
rule that says we can do that or example of Okrand doing that.
Furthermore, Okrand /has/ given us question words next to nouns, but
they mean something very different. *nuq* and *'Iv* work like pronouns,
and you can say things like *nuq Duj**vetlh*/what is that ship?/ and
*yaSvetlh 'Iv*/who is that officer?/
You originally asked,
we said that we can't have {'Iv} and {nuq} as part of noun-noun
constructions. but can we have the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} existing next
to nouns ?
for example can we say:
{ghorgh DaSjaj mamej}
when do we depart on monday ?
{DaSjaj ghorgh mamej}
on monday when do we depart
{nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'}
where on earth someone finds bears ?
{tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'}
on earth where someone finds bears ?
My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question words as
part of a noun-noun construction. In the first two we see an independent
time expression*(DaSjaj)* and the question word *ghorgh* each standing
alone. In the second two we see a locative noun *(tera'Daq)* and the
question word *nuqDaq* each standing alone. There are no noun-noun
constructions here.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------D9AB4F150FE32F55319A2DBF
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/16/2016 9:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLz8k0_=e63QzPCepnkDG5jzQp9nAdmE8zr5V=gmHzXMg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">but if I write something which doesn't violate a rule,
why dismiss it if okrand never used it ? who can argue that okrand
has used every possible combination in klingon, so that if what I
write doesn't fall into these combinations, then it is wrong ?
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>There's not violating a rule, and then there's making up a new
rule. You're trying to construct a sentence whose grammar doesn't
follow from what we've been given, but which does mimic English
grammar. This is a strong sign that you're trying to follow the
rules of English to construct Klingon sentences.</p>
<p>If you try to make a sentence using a rule you made up, even one
which doesn't seem to violate any of Okrand's rules, we're going
to demand to see some justification. This is why I tell you, when
you ask why can't we say <b>*pawpu' nuq Duj</b><i> what ship has
arrived?</i>, that Okrand hasn't created a rule that says <b>nuq</b>
acts like <i>which?,</i> and he's never constructed a sentence
that acted that way. Those are the two ways we learn the rules of
Klingon: Okrand says "this is a rule," or we deduce the rules from
Okrand's examples.</p>
<p><b>nuq</b> goes in the place the answer would occupy. But if it's
part of a noun-noun construction it the answer doesn't replace the
entire noun-noun. If the answer were <b>pawpu' 'entepray',</b>
what I've done is replace <b>*nuq Duj</b><b>,</b> not just <b>nuq,</b>
with the answer. And there's no rule that says we can do that or
example of Okrand doing that.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Okrand <i>has</i> given us question words next to
nouns, but they mean something very different. <b>nuq</b> and <b>'Iv</b>
work like pronouns, and you can say things like <b>nuq Duj</b><b>vetlh</b><i>
what is that ship?</i> and <b>yaSvetlh 'Iv</b><i> who is that
officer?</i><br>
</p>
<p>You originally asked,</p>
<blockquote>
<pre wrap="">we said that we can't have {'Iv} and {nuq} as part of noun-noun
constructions. but can we have the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} existing next
to nouns ?
for example can we say:
{ghorgh DaSjaj mamej}
when do we depart on monday ?
{DaSjaj ghorgh mamej}
on monday when do we depart
{nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'}
where on earth someone finds bears ?
{tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'}
on earth where someone finds bears ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question
words as part of a noun-noun construction. In the first two we see
an independent time expression<b> (DaSjaj)</b> and the question
word <b>ghorgh</b> each standing alone. In the second two we see
a locative noun <b>(tera'Daq)</b> and the question word <b>nuqDaq</b>
each standing alone. There are no noun-noun constructions here.<br>
</p>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------D9AB4F150FE32F55319A2DBF--
--===============7266144137362051880==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============7266144137362051880==--
