[109060] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Feb 20 11:35:51 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:35:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CABSTb1d8P-swuc3Y4pZ8azXy2S1N_tOPr3xndCS3VLkz=fat1Q@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.
--===============5321527080136286064==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------575510E0C50E3C9A06E497BD"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------575510E0C50E3C9A06E497BD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 2/20/2017 11:03 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>
>
>> naQjej rurmo' wot, ghantoH <chuH> vIlo'. vay''e' chuHlu'bogh
>> 'oSbej ?chuHlu'wI' 'e' SIbI' vItlhoj.
>
> *vay'e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej *chuHlu'wI' SIbI' 'e' vItlhoj*
>
> or
>
> *SIbI' vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oHSbej *chuHlu'wI' 'e' vItlhoj*
>
> <'e'> tlha'laH chuvmey 'e' vIQub. 'a jIQochbe', <'e'> nung chuvmey
> vImaS je.
*'e'* lutlha'laHbe' chuv. chaq /TKD/ 6.7 mojaq /-'e'/ je DaqelHa'.
> In English passive voice, this is true. *-lu'* is not English passive
> voice. In Klingon, when *-lu'* is added, the object remains the object.
>
> This is the language used to decribe what goes on in Klingon. My point
> is the construction i
Your sentence seems to have been cut off.
The language used to describe what goes on in Klingon is
"someone/something does something to me" and "someone/something does
something to them," and so on. Only after giving examples in most
combinations does TKD say "Verbs with *-lu'* are often translated into
the English passive voice." It then gives the SAME examples translated
into passive voice. The point is clearly not that what's happening in
Klingon is grammatically equivalent to English passive voice; it simply
means that passive voice is often a more colloquial translation. It
sounds stilted to say "someone/something remembers you"; it sounds
natural to say "you are remembered."
>
>> So'bogh DoS DIp chu' jal rom chut je,
>
> /The rule of accord envisions a new, hidden target noun/?
>
> My language here is awkward. An example is called for. When {mulegh
> ghaH} is changed to {vIleghlu'}. The rule of accord requires the
> prefix {vI-}, so although semantically there is a null agent and
> first-person singular patient, grammatically the rule of accord treats
> this situation as if there were a first-person singular subject and
> third-person singular object, although that object is merely a
> grammatical fiction. This is clearly a special situation, and I have
> to wonder whether OVS accurately reflects how Klingon linguists would
> interpret it.
*mulegh ghaH* is not changed to *vIleghlu'.* You construct *vIleghlu'*
directly. There is no transformation from one to another. When I am
thinking in Klingon and I intend to use an indefinite subject, my mind
goes straight to *vI-* being the proper prefix.
The *vI-* prefix does not, according to the description in TKD, treat
*vIleghlu'* as if it had a first-person singular subject and a
third-person singular object. TKD explicitly says the prefixes are used
to mean something else. With *-lu',* *vI-* MEANS first-person object.
There's no grammatical fiction going on; the prefixes are simply
reassigned for *-lu'.*
Now, is it possible that there is some "grammatical fiction" reason WHY
the prefixes are reassigned? Maybe, but that's pure conjecture and
there's no evidence for it anywhere.
>
>> 'a potlhbe', mu'tlheghDaq DI'rujDaq ghap DoS DIpqoqvam chu'
>> tu'be'lu'mo'. wotvaD DoS DIp 'oHtaH nungbogh DIp'e'. moHaqvaD
>> chuHwI' DIp mojlaw' nungbogh DIp. ghu'vam vIqelmeH DIvI' Hol
>> qechmey /subject/ /object/ je, jImISqu'choH. 'ach vuDlIj QIjmeH
>> /subject/ /object/ je wuv SuStel. rarchu'be' tlhIngan Hol,
>> qechmeyvam je 'e' vIQub.
>>
>> ghu'vam le'mo', SuStel vuD vIHon. latlh meq vIghaj. 'oSlaHbe'
>> wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je, 'eb lonlu'pu' 'ej pagh chavlu'.
>
> Hoch 'eb jon Hol 'e' SaHbe' Hol.
>
> 'a chaq SaH tlhInganpu'. 'eb tu'DI', lulo' 'e' bot nuq? lubotlaHbe'ba'
> tera'ngan Holtej. 'a 'eb lulo' luneHbe' tlhIngan, SIghlaHbe' je
> tera'ngan Holtej.
Arguing over whether a Klingon would or would not care about a
particular grammatical feature is not a useful line of reasoning, in my
view.
> DaH jIyevnIS 'a jItaHqa'. SuStel, choQaHqangmo' choquvmoH. qaQeHmoHmo'
> jIQoS. jItlhIj 'e' DalajlaH'a'?
HIja', 'ej DaH SoHvaD jItlhIj je. Doj QIjmeH QInlIj. jIQoch 'ach DaH
batlh choghoHpu'.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------575510E0C50E3C9A06E497BD
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 2/20/2017 11:03 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABSTb1d8P-swuc3Y4pZ8azXy2S1N_tOPr3xndCS3VLkz=fat1Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> naQjej rurmo' wot, ghantoH <chuH>
vIlo'. vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej ?chuHlu'wI'
'e' SIbI' vItlhoj.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
<p><b>vay'e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej *chuHlu'wI' SIbI' 'e'
vItlhoj</b></p>
<p>or</p>
<p><b>SIbI' vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oHSbej *chuHlu'wI' 'e'
vItlhoj</b></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><'e'> tlha'laH chuvmey 'e' vIQub. 'a jIQochbe',
<'e'> nung chuvmey vImaS je.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>'e'</b> lutlha'laHbe' chuv. chaq <i>TKD</i> 6.7 mojaq <i>-'e'</i>
je DaqelHa'.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABSTb1d8P-swuc3Y4pZ8azXy2S1N_tOPr3xndCS3VLkz=fat1Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">In English passive
voice, this is true. <b>-lu'</b> is not English passive
voice. In Klingon, when <b>-lu'</b> is added, the object
remains the object.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is the language used to decribe what goes on in
Klingon. My point is the construction i <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Your sentence seems to have been cut off.</p>
<p>The language used to describe what goes on in Klingon is
"someone/something does something to me" and "someone/something
does something to them," and so on. Only after giving examples in
most combinations does TKD say "Verbs with <b>-lu'</b> are often
translated into the English passive voice." It then gives the SAME
examples translated into passive voice. The point is clearly not
that what's happening in Klingon is grammatically equivalent to
English passive voice; it simply means that passive voice is often
a more colloquial translation. It sounds stilted to say
"someone/something remembers you"; it sounds natural to say "you
are remembered."<br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABSTb1d8P-swuc3Y4pZ8azXy2S1N_tOPr3xndCS3VLkz=fat1Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p> </p>
<span class=""> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> So'bogh DoS DIp chu' jal rom chut je,</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
<p><i>The rule of accord envisions a new, hidden target
noun</i>?<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>My language here is awkward. An example is called for.
When {mulegh ghaH} is changed to {vIleghlu'}. The rule of
accord requires the prefix {vI-}, so although semantically
there is a null agent and first-person singular patient,
grammatically the rule of accord treats this situation as
if there were a first-person singular subject and
third-person singular object, although that object is
merely a grammatical fiction. This is clearly a special
situation, and I have to wonder whether OVS accurately
reflects how Klingon linguists would interpret it.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>mulegh ghaH</b> is not changed to <b>vIleghlu'.</b> You
construct <b>vIleghlu'</b> directly. There is no transformation
from one to another. When I am thinking in Klingon and I intend to
use an indefinite subject, my mind goes straight to <b>vI-</b>
being the proper prefix.<br>
</p>
<p>The <b>vI-</b> prefix does not, according to the description in
TKD, treat <b>vIleghlu'</b> as if it had a first-person singular
subject and a third-person singular object. TKD explicitly says
the prefixes are used to mean something else. With <b>-lu',</b> <b>vI-</b>
MEANS first-person object. There's no grammatical fiction going
on; the prefixes are simply reassigned for <b>-lu'.</b></p>
<p>Now, is it possible that there is some "grammatical fiction"
reason WHY the prefixes are reassigned? Maybe, but that's pure
conjecture and there's no evidence for it anywhere.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABSTb1d8P-swuc3Y4pZ8azXy2S1N_tOPr3xndCS3VLkz=fat1Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p> </p>
<span class=""></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> 'a potlhbe', mu'tlheghDaq DI'rujDaq ghap DoS
DIpqoqvam chu' tu'be'lu'mo'. wotvaD DoS DIp
'oHtaH nungbogh DIp'e'. moHaqvaD chuHwI' DIp
mojlaw' nungbogh DIp. ghu'vam vIqelmeH DIvI' Hol
qechmey /subject/ /object/ je, jImISqu'choH.
'ach vuDlIj QIjmeH /subject/ /object/ je wuv
SuStel. rarchu'be' tlhIngan Hol, qechmeyvam je
'e' vIQub.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>ghu'vam le'mo', SuStel vuD vIHon. latlh meq
vIghaj. 'oSlaHbe' wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'>
<-wI'> je, 'eb lonlu'pu' 'ej pagh chavlu'.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
<p>Hoch 'eb jon Hol 'e' SaHbe' Hol.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>'a chaq SaH tlhInganpu'. 'eb tu'DI', lulo' 'e' bot nuq?
lubotlaHbe'ba' tera'ngan Holtej. 'a 'eb lulo' luneHbe'
tlhIngan, SIghlaHbe' je tera'ngan Holtej.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Arguing over whether a Klingon would or would not care about a
particular grammatical feature is not a useful line of reasoning,
in my view.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABSTb1d8P-swuc3Y4pZ8azXy2S1N_tOPr3xndCS3VLkz=fat1Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>DaH jIyevnIS 'a jItaHqa'. SuStel, choQaHqangmo'
choquvmoH. qaQeHmoHmo' jIQoS. jItlhIj 'e' DalajlaH'a'?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>HIja', 'ej DaH SoHvaD jItlhIj je. Doj QIjmeH QInlIj. jIQoch 'ach
DaH batlh choghoHpu'.<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>
--------------575510E0C50E3C9A06E497BD--
--===============5321527080136286064==
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
--===============5321527080136286064==--
