[109024] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Sat Feb 18 00:19:32 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 00:18:55 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CABSTb1e74EfMU78EcW_=EgDVHVOeStknSvSwegBz2F_9qW3Bnw@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.
--===============5888283278456535131==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------36B45F031D8B08B8FD29E853"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------36B45F031D8B08B8FD29E853
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 2/17/2017 11:24 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:36 PM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com
> <mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com>> wrote:
>
> I have a project I'm working on and I would like to figure out the
> most efficient way to elicit the image of rendered fat as a
> thing. Is {tlhag} the subject of {'Im} and thus {'Impu'wI'} might
> work? Or is {tlhag} the object of {'Im} and thus we might have to
> go with the unwieldy {tlhagh 'Imlu'pu'bogh}? What about {-wI'}
> with {-lu'} - {'Imlu'pu'wI'}?
>
> Jeremy
>
> Oh, boy, the {-lu'} plus {-wI'} thing again! I so wish MO would
> finally rule on this, since it's immediately obvious to some this
> combination nominalizes the same way as "-ee" in "employee," but
> others regard the construction as grammatical gibberish, and they seem
> to have convinced most to avoid using it. (I can't help but suspect
> the difficulty with {-lu'} plus {-wI'} has a lot to do with a
> programming background, since the objection is often phrased as "I
> can't make that mean anything," which sounds a lot like a compiler
> error to me.)
I understand your interpretation perfectly well, thank you very much. I
just think it's wrong.
*-wI'* has the effect of nominalizing the verb into the subject of that
verb. A *vutwI'* is the thing that performs *vut,* the subject of *vut.*
If you were to say **vutlu'wI',* you'd be trying to nominalize the verb
into a nonexistent subject. No one in particular performs *vutlu',* so
it makes no sense to talk about the noun that performs *vutlu'.*
If **vutlu'wI'* were to mean /that which is cooked,/ you'd be
nominalizing the verb into its object, which is not what *-wI'* does.
There's a very strong reason to think that's what it means if you're
thinking in English: English passive voice turns the thing acted upon
into the subject. *Soj vutlu'*/the food is cooked,/ so it would seem
natural to say nominalizing that refers to the food. But it doesn't.
English passive voice doesn't exist in Klingon; the active voice
translation of *Soj vutlu'* is /one cooks the food,/ and so we're
nominalizing the verb into the cook. But that's no different than
nominalizing straight *vut,* so the *-lu'* has absolutely nothing to do
with the meaning of *-wI'.* The two simply don't go together.
As for a parallel with English /-ee,/ remember that *-wI'* is equivalent
to English /-er,/ not /-ee,/ and even in English you need a whole
different suffix to nominalize to the object instead of the subject.
The only way this could work would be if Okrand were to arbitrarily make
up a new rule that says adding *-wI'* to a verb with *-lu'* changes the
process to refer to the object of the verb instead of the subject. He
hasn't said this, he hasn't done this, and there is no way to deduce
that rule from existing rules. It only seems right because you're
thinking in English passive voice.
> "Boil" can take an object or not, of course, but the online OED gives
> only transitive definitions for "render":
>
> "Melt down (fat) in order to clarify it.
> /‘the fat was being cut up and rendered for lard’/
> Process (the carcass of an animal) in order to extract proteins, fats,
> and other usable parts.
> /‘the rendered down remains of sheep’ "
>
> /
> So I'd expect {tlhag} is the object of {'Im}. 'ej bIjatlhchugh
> <'Imlu'pu'wI'>, vay' 'Imlu'pu'bogh 'oH 'e' SIbI' vIyaj.
Why are we dropping the h in *gh*?
Clearly, the correct phrase is *tlhagh 'Imlu'pu'bogh*/rendered fat./ I'm
not sure why this is supposed to be unwieldy; Okrand has used this sort
of formation a number of times. *Soj vutlu'pu'bogh*/food that somebody
has prepared/ as opposed to *Soj tlhol*/raw, unprocessed food;/*boqrat
chej Qevlu'pu'bogh*/stewed bokrat liver;/ *pIpyuS pach
HaHlu'pu'bogh*/marinated pipius claw /(all from KGT);*to'baj 'uSHom
lughoDlu'bogh*/stuffed tobaj leg /(PK).
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------36B45F031D8B08B8FD29E853
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 2/17/2017 11:24 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABSTb1e74EfMU78EcW_=EgDVHVOeStknSvSwegBz2F_9qW3Bnw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:36 PM,
David Holt <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com" target="_blank">kenjutsuka@live.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div
id="gmail-m_6005774015992061911divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:calibri,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
dir="ltr">
<p>I have a project I'm working on and I would like to
figure out the most efficient way to elicit the
image of rendered fat as a thing. Is {tlhag} the
subject of {'Im} and thus {'Impu'wI'} might work?
Or is {tlhag} the object of {'Im} and thus we might
have to go with the unwieldy {tlhagh
'Imlu'pu'bogh}? What about {-wI'} with {-lu'}
- {'Imlu'pu'wI'}?</p>
<p>Jeremy</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>Oh, boy, the {-lu'} plus {-wI'} thing again! I so
wish MO would finally rule on this, since it's
immediately obvious to some this combination nominalizes
the same way as "-ee" in "employee," but others regard
the construction as grammatical gibberish, and they seem
to have convinced most to avoid using it. (I can't help
but suspect the difficulty with {-lu'} plus {-wI'} has a
lot to do with a programming background, since the
objection is often phrased as "I can't make that mean
anything," which sounds a lot like a compiler error to
me.)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I understand your interpretation perfectly well, thank you very
much. I just think it's wrong.</p>
<p><b>-wI'</b> has the effect of nominalizing the verb into the
subject of that verb. A <b>vutwI'</b> is the thing that performs
<b>vut,</b> the subject of <b>vut.</b></p>
<p>If you were to say <b>*vutlu'wI',</b> you'd be trying to
nominalize the verb into a nonexistent subject. No one in
particular performs <b>vutlu',</b> so it makes no sense to talk
about the noun that performs <b>vutlu'.</b></p>
<p>If *<b>vutlu'wI'</b> were to mean <i>that which is cooked,</i>
you'd be nominalizing the verb into its object, which is not what
<b>-wI'</b> does. There's a very strong reason to think that's
what it means if you're thinking in English: English passive voice
turns the thing acted upon into the subject. <b>Soj vutlu'</b><i>
the food is cooked,</i> so it would seem natural to say
nominalizing that refers to the food. But it doesn't. English
passive voice doesn't exist in Klingon; the active voice
translation of <b>Soj vutlu'</b> is <i>one cooks the food,</i>
and so we're nominalizing the verb into the cook. But that's no
different than nominalizing straight <b>vut,</b> so the <b>-lu'</b>
has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of <b>-wI'.</b> The
two simply don't go together.</p>
<p>As for a parallel with English <i>-ee,</i> remember that <b>-wI'</b>
is equivalent to English <i>-er,</i> not <i>-ee,</i> and even in
English you need a whole different suffix to nominalize to the
object instead of the subject.<br>
</p>
<p>The only way this could work would be if Okrand were to
arbitrarily make up a new rule that says adding <b>-wI'</b> to a
verb with <b>-lu'</b> changes the process to refer to the object
of the verb instead of the subject. He hasn't said this, he hasn't
done this, and there is no way to deduce that rule from existing
rules. It only seems right because you're thinking in English
passive voice.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABSTb1e74EfMU78EcW_=EgDVHVOeStknSvSwegBz2F_9qW3Bnw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>"Boil" can take an object or not, of course, but the
online OED gives only transitive definitions for
"render":<br>
<br>
<span class="gmail-ind">"Melt down (fat) in order to
clarify it.</span>
<div class="exg">
<div class="ex"> <em>‘the fat was being cut up and
rendered for lard’</em></div>
</div>
<span class="gmail-ind">Process (the carcass of an
animal) in order to extract proteins, fats, and other
usable parts.</span>
<div class="exg">
<div class="ex"> <em>‘the rendered down remains of
sheep’ "<br>
<br>
</em></div>
<div class="ex">So I'd expect {tlhag} is the object of
{'Im}. 'ej bIjatlhchugh <'Imlu'pu'wI'>, vay'
'Imlu'pu'bogh 'oH 'e' SIbI' vIyaj.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Why are we dropping the h in <b>gh</b>?</p>
<p>Clearly, the correct phrase is <b>tlhagh 'Imlu'pu'bogh</b><i>
rendered fat.</i> I'm not sure why this is supposed to be
unwieldy; Okrand has used this sort of formation a number of
times. <b>Soj vutlu'pu'bogh</b><i> food that somebody has
prepared</i> as opposed to <b>Soj tlhol</b><i> raw, unprocessed
food;</i><b> boqrat chej Qevlu'pu'bogh</b><i> stewed bokrat
liver;</i> <b>pIpyuS pach HaHlu'pu'bogh</b><i> marinated pipius
claw </i>(all from KGT);<b> to'baj 'uSHom lughoDlu'bogh</b><i>
stuffed tobaj leg </i>(PK).<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>
--------------36B45F031D8B08B8FD29E853--
--===============5888283278456535131==
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
--===============5888283278456535131==--
