[108478] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunenoS)
Sun Dec 18 06:52:23 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAHgxQO0yJqPd92oWMc5_MREmy4bd4EpHOcei72W8qSVz7w5MYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:52:17 +0200
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============4127590227247456950==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143d16e61266b0543ed6f08
--001a1143d16e61266b0543ed6f08
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
yes, you're right.
I obviously confused you, because of my previous comments. here's what
happened:
De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun. However I wasn't (and
still am) unable to accept that.
In order for a {-bogh} clause to be able to be considered a noun, then that
noun has to be either a subject, or an object of the verb which carries the
{-bogh}.
{muqIpta' yaS}
the officer who hit me
{paq qanobta'bogh}
the book which I gave you
When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the
only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the
object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation
could only be "the here which I am being".
Unless if it is possible, for a locative word like {naDev} to be considered
an object. but noone here has ever taught me that this is possible.
And how could it be ? If it was possible, then at the sentence {naDev,
qama' qIp yaS} "here the officer hits the prisoner", we would have two
objects before the verb thus producing object-object-verb-subject (which is
illegal). And of course, noone can say that the {naDev} is a beneficiary
since it carries no {-vaD}, and it isn't affected from the action.
So, until someone is able to explain to me this matter in a logical and
meaningful way, I will continue to believe that there is no way we can
explain this baq'batlh sentence by the grammar we know so far.
qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 18 Dec 2016 1:18 pm, "Brian Cote" <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Slightly beside mayqel's point, but in the phrase {naDev jIHtaH} /I am
> here/ (see TKD 27-28pp), the {naDev} is implicitly locative, right? So it
> can never mean /I am the here/(?) It should be considered {naDev[Daq]
> jIHtaH} grammatically, although the {-Daq} is never written explicitly in
> this case. That is correct, right?
>
> QImSIr
>
> On Sunday, December 18, 2016, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'."
>> > /Now I will tell you why I am here./
>>
>> if the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is indeed a noun, them I believe this resembles
>> the "ship in which I fled" problem.
>>
>> if we accept the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun, then obviously by the same
>> reasoning we need to accept {Duj jInarghbogh} as a noun too, unless the
>> {naDev} is the object of {jIHtaHbogh}, thus producing "the here which I am
>> being".
>>
>> of course in star trek everything is possible, so perhaps someone can
>> change state of being thus from a humanoid becoming a place.. but then
>> again the english translation doesn't say "now I will tell you why I became
>> the here".
>>
>> qunnoH jan puqloD
>> ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
>>
>> On 17 Dec 2016 10:31 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/17/2016 1:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>>>
>>> ok, I read it; {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.
>>>
>>> however based on what I know, I can't analyze it. "here which I am being
>>> I don't know it". shouldn't the {naDev} always come first ? and what is its
>>> role in that sentence ? is it the subject of the {jIHtaHbogh}, the object
>>> of {vISovbe'}, or both ?
>>>
>>> as I wrote earlier in this thread, I am obviously missing something
>>> here, and by the looks of it, it must be something pretty important..
>>>
>>>
>>> I've never heard a satisfactory analysis of the sentence either. But
>>> Okrand obviously has one to use the *jIHtaHbogh* word more than once.
>>>
>>> --
>>> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>>> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
>>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
--001a1143d16e61266b0543ed6f08
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">yes, you're right.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I obviously confused you, because of my previous comments. h=
ere's what happened:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun. Howe=
ver I wasn't (and still am) unable to accept that.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">In order for a {-bogh} clause to be able to be considered a =
noun, then that noun has to be either a subject, or an object of the verb w=
hich carries the {-bogh}.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">{muqIpta' yaS}<br>
the officer who hit me</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">{paq qanobta'bogh}<br>
the book which I gave you</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun,=
I wrote that the only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is conside=
red to be the object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the tr=
anslation could only be "the here which I am being".</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Unless if it is possible, for a locative word like {naDev} t=
o be considered an object. but noone here has ever taught me that this is p=
ossible. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">And how could it be ? If it was possible, then at the senten=
ce {naDev, qama' qIp yaS} "here the officer hits the prisoner"=
;, we would have two objects before the verb thus producing object-object-v=
erb-subject (which is illegal). And of course, noone can say that the {naDe=
v} is a beneficiary since it carries no {-vaD}, and it isn't affected f=
rom the action.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">So, until someone is able to explain to me this matter in a =
logical and meaningful way, I will continue to believe that there is no way=
we can explain this baq'batlh sentence by the grammar we know so far.<=
br>
<br>
qunnoH jan puqloD<br>
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 18 Dec 2016 1:=
18 pm, "Brian Cote" <<a href=3D"mailto:wearetheinformation00@g=
mail.com">wearetheinformation00@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribu=
tion"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Slightly beside mayqel's=C2=A0poin=
t, but in the phrase {naDev jIHtaH} /I am here/ (see=C2=A0TKD 27-28pp),=C2=
=A0the {naDev} is implicitly locative, right? So it can never mean /I am th=
e here/(?) It should be considered {naDev[Daq] jIHtaH} grammatically, altho=
ugh the {-Daq} is never written explicitly=C2=A0in this case. That is corre=
ct, right?<div><br></div><div>QImSIr<br><br>On Sunday, December 18, 2016, m=
ayqel qunenoS <<a href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mi=
hkoun@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=
=3D"ltr">> DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'."<br>
> /Now I will tell you why I am here./</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">if the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is indeed a noun, them I believe t=
his resembles the "ship in which I fled" problem.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">if we accept the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun, then obviousl=
y by the same reasoning we need to accept {Duj jInarghbogh} as a noun too, =
unless the {naDev} is the object of {jIHtaHbogh}, thus producing "the =
here which I am being".</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">of course in star trek everything is possible, so perhaps so=
meone can change state of being thus from a humanoid becoming a place.. but=
then again the english translation doesn't say "now I will tell y=
ou why I became the here".</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">qunnoH jan puqloD<br>
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 17 Dec 2016 10=
:31 pm, "SuStel" <<a>sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br ty=
pe=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=20
=20
=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
<div>On 12/17/2016 1:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<p dir=3D"ltr">ok, I read it; {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">however based on what I know, I can't analyze it.
"here which I am being I don't know it". shouldn'=
t the {naDev}
always come first ? and what is its role in that sentence ? is
it the subject of the {jIHtaHbogh}, the object of {vISovbe'}, o=
r
both ?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">as I wrote earlier in this thread, I am obviously
missing something here, and by the looks of it, it must be
something pretty important..</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I've never heard a satisfactory analysis of the sentence either.
But Okrand obviously has one to use the <b>jIHtaHbogh</b> word
more than once.<br>
</p>
<pre cols=3D"72">--=20
SuStel
<a href=3D"http://trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">http://trimboli.name</a>=
</pre>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a>tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a=
><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>
--001a1143d16e61266b0543ed6f08--
--===============4127590227247456950==
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
--===============4127590227247456950==--
