[108561] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {-lIvIS}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Dec 23 09:30:15 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 09:29:43 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cK08FOe4Fsf5JpxiQx48upi-MaWN-7mZgWwVywrfCjfeQ@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.
--===============0193892666651469385==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------F7B3535A62409B599CABFD9D"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------F7B3535A62409B599CABFD9D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 12/23/2016 8:53 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> mIp'av:
> > As for rovers, does anyone even have a
> > definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would
> > have following {-taH} ?
>
> lets write an example..
>
> {jIvumtaH} "I am continuously working".
>
> {jIvumtaHqu'} "I am very much continuously working". I would
> understand this as someone trying to emphasize the "continuously",
> though I can't say that in my mind there is much difference between
> the {-taH} and the {-taHqu'}. after all there are 24 hours in the day,
> right ? If someone says "I am working continuously", then the maximum
> I can understand is those 24 hours. I don't see how the {-qu'}, can
> add more to this.
At qep'a' wejDIch a bunch of people were playing a song-naming game, and
they'd been playing it for a long time. Others of us were wondering why
they didn't come join us in speaking Klingon. I walked up to them and
said: *SubomlI'be'. SubomtaHqu'.*
> {jIvumtaHbe'} "I am not continuously working". I think this does make
> sense, and its ok to use it.
Absolutely. Furthermore, we've seen a number of examples in which the
*-be'* suffix seems to have a larger scope than just the immediately
preceding element. So *jIvumtaHbe'* might mean /I am not continuously
working/ *(**jI-vum-[taH-be']**)* but it also might mean /I am not
working continuously/*([jI-vum-taH]-be').*
> now, if your original question was with regards to rovers being placed
> after the {-taH} in the {-taHvIS}, then I think that the resulting
> sentence wouldn't make sense.
I can see the problem. **jIvumtaHqu'vIS* /while I am CONTINUOUSLY
working/—as opposed to what? All /while/s in Klingon are continuous.
**jIvumtaHbe'vIS*/while I am not-continuously working/—except all
/whiles/ in Klingon are continuous.
I have no problem with *-neS,* though, if you really want to put it
there. **jIvumtaHneSvIS*/while, sir, I am working./ I agree, however,
with the opinion that you're more likely to put the *-neS* on the main
clause, not on the dependent clause. I suppose you could be thoroughly
obsequious and say **jIvumtaHneSvIS HuchwIj DaHIjneS'a'*///would you
please deliver my money while I am working, sir?/ (That's a very loose
translation.) I imagine there are cultural reasons you wouldn't do this,
but I don't claim this as evidence against the practice.
Ultimately, I think *-taH* and *-vIS* remain separate suffixes; there is
no suffix **-taHvIS,* and there's no evidence of movement toward there
being one. *-taH* is simply a requirement of using *-vIS,* and I /think/
that the *-taH* must be unmodified by rovers to make sense.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------F7B3535A62409B599CABFD9D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<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 12/23/2016 8:53 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK08FOe4Fsf5JpxiQx48upi-MaWN-7mZgWwVywrfCjfeQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="auto">mIp'av:
<div dir="auto">> <span style="font-family:sans-serif">As for
rovers, does anyone even have a </span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">>
definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">> have
following {-taH} ?</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">lets write
an example..</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">{jIvumtaH}
"</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif">I am
continuously working".</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">{jIvumtaHqu'}
"</span><span style="font-family:sans-serif">I am very much
continuously working". I would understand this as someone
trying to emphasize the "continuously", though I can't say
that in my mind there is much difference between the {-taH}
and the {-taHqu'}. after all there are 24 hours in the day,
right ? If someone says "I am working continuously", then
the maximum I can understand is those 24 hours. I don't see
how the {-qu'}, can add more to this.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>At qep'a' wejDIch a bunch of people were playing a song-naming
game, and they'd been playing it for a long time. Others of us
were wondering why they didn't come join us in speaking Klingon. I
walked up to them and said: <b>SubomlI'be'. SubomtaHqu'.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK08FOe4Fsf5JpxiQx48upi-MaWN-7mZgWwVywrfCjfeQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">{jIvumtaHbe'}
"I am not continuously working". I think this does make
sense, and its ok to use it.</span><span
style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Absolutely. Furthermore, we've seen a number of examples in which
the <b>-be'</b> suffix seems to have a larger scope than just the
immediately preceding element. So <b>jIvumtaHbe'</b> might mean <i>I
am not continuously working</i> <b>(</b><b>jI-vum-[taH-be']</b><b>)</b>
but it also might mean <i>I am not working continuously</i><b> ([jI-vum-taH]-be').</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK08FOe4Fsf5JpxiQx48upi-MaWN-7mZgWwVywrfCjfeQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">now, if
your original question was with regards to rovers being
placed after the {-taH} in the {-taHvIS}, then I think that
the resulting sentence wouldn't make sense.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I can see the problem. *<b>jIvumtaHqu'vIS</b> <i>while I am
CONTINUOUSLY working</i>—as opposed to what? All <i>while</i>s
in Klingon are continuous. *<b>jIvumtaHbe'vIS</b><i> while I am not-continuously
working</i>—except all <i>whiles</i> in Klingon are continuous.</p>
<p>I have no problem with <b>-neS,</b> though, if you really want
to put it there. *<b>jIvumtaHneSvIS</b><i> while, sir, I am
working.</i> I agree, however, with the opinion that you're more
likely to put the <b>-neS</b> on the main clause, not on the
dependent clause. I suppose you could be thoroughly obsequious and
say <b>*jIvumtaHneSvIS HuchwIj DaHIjneS'a'</b><i> </i><i>would
you please deliver my money while I am working, sir?</i> (That's
a very loose translation.) I imagine there are cultural reasons
you wouldn't do this, but I don't claim this as evidence against
the practice.</p>
<p>Ultimately, I think <b>-taH</b> and <b>-vIS</b> remain separate
suffixes; there is no suffix <b>*-taHvIS,</b> and there's no
evidence of movement toward there being one. <b>-taH</b> is
simply a requirement of using <b>-vIS,</b> and I <i>think</i>
that the <b>-taH</b> must be unmodified by rovers to make sense.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------F7B3535A62409B599CABFD9D--
--===============0193892666651469385==
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
--===============0193892666651469385==--
