[109124] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brent Kesler)
Wed Mar 1 10:12:57 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <e1533b1e-df59-3ed7-bf25-6a3b26bdc2ac@trimboli.name>
From: Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:12:53 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0010659615160761001==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c032858303bf20549acbf6f
--94eb2c032858303bf20549acbf6f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I finally pulled out my copy of TKD and read the entire section about *-lI'*.
Based on TKD alone, I think the argument in favor of intention is weak for
two reasons:
1. The bulk of the description about *-lI'* is about how it denotes
progress toward a goal or end point, rather than intention.
2. The bit about intention only appears in the last sentence, and that
sentence only says that it's *possible* to consider *-lI'* a continuous
counterpart of *-ta'*, not that it's *mandatory*.
As for the canon examples discussed in this thread, I have two thoughts:
3. We may be suffering from selection bias. People like to tell stories
about other people, and people often act with intent, so we're going to get
a lopsided sample of *-lI' *being used for intention. That's not a
conclusive argument one way or the other, but it's something to keep in
mind.
4. Some of the examples seem ambiguous, and I think that lets us inject the
idea of intention when we don't need to. I think the discussion between
Lieven and Sustel about *chollI'* *(the torpedo) is getting closer *is
telling.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
> I had some more thoughts about this and what I said, and found the answer
> to my own question:
> TKD gives the example {chollI'} "it (the torpedo) is getting closer"
> "when it is known that the missile has been aimed at that target."
> This does confirm that the thing does not itself have the intention to do
> what it does, a torpedoe does not "think" or "intend" to do what it does.
> The speaker does also not "intend" what is happening. He is neutral as
> describing what is going on: {chollI' peng} is to me the same as {pumlI'
> nagh}.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:14 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> The restrictive side of the argument says that *someone* fired the
> torpedo and set its goal intentionally, and it is the firer's perspective
> that is generating the *-lI'.* Do you disagree with this argument?
>
To me, it feels like you're begging the question. If I fired the torpedo, I
know my intention, but if I'm the target, do I have to guess whether it was
intentionally fired? Maybe it was a misfire, like what the crew of the
Enterprise thought might have happened to Kronos 1 in ST6. In the heat of
battle, it might be a friendly fire incident. Intentional or not, I don't
care; the torpedo has a known end point, and that end point is *me*.
More importantly, if we're arguing about the the intentions hidden in the
minds of people we can't see, we're probably injecting our own thoughts
into the sentence rather than unpacking its meaning.
On the other hand, if Klingons do exactly that sort of thinking whenever
they construct a sentence, that's an important cultural difference that any
competent field linguist would take the time to make clear. It would merit
more discussion that a single sentence saying it's *possible *to *consider*
*-lI'* a continuous version of *-ta'*.
For these reasons, I favor the argument against intentional progress. I
think the argument in favor puts too much stress on just one sentence of
TKD, and the canon evidence is inconclusive at best.
bI'reng
--94eb2c032858303bf20549acbf6f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I finally pulled out my copy of TKD and read the entire se=
ction about <b>-lI'</b>. Based on TKD alone, I think the argument in fa=
vor of intention is weak for two reasons:<div><br></div><blockquote style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>1. The bulk of th=
e description about <b>-lI'</b>=C2=A0is about how it denotes progress t=
oward a goal or end point, rather than intention.</div><div>2. The bit abou=
t intention only appears in the last sentence, and that sentence only says =
that it's <i>possible</i>=C2=A0to consider <b>-lI'</b>=C2=A0a conti=
nuous counterpart of <b>-ta'</b>, not that it's <i>mandatory</i>.</=
div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As for the canon examples discussed in=
this thread, I have two thoughts:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>3. We may be suffering fro=
m selection bias. People like to tell stories about other people, and peopl=
e often act with intent, so we're going to get a lopsided sample of <b>=
-lI' </b>being used for intention. That's not a conclusive argument=
one way or the other, but it's something to keep in mind.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>4. Some of the examples seem ambiguous, and I think that lets =
us inject the idea of intention when we don't need to. I think the disc=
ussion between Lieven and Sustel about <b>chollI'</b>=C2=A0<i>(the torp=
edo) is getting closer=C2=A0</i>is telling.</div><div><br></div><div><br></=
div><div>On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Lieven=C2=A0<span dir=3D"ltr"><=
;<a href=3D"mailto:levinius@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">levinius@gmx.de</a>&g=
t;</span>=C2=A0wrote:</div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-lef=
t:1ex">I had some more thoughts about this and what I said, and found the a=
nswer to my own question:</blockquote></div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote></div><div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,=
204,204);padding-left:1ex">TKD gives the example {chollI'} "it (th=
e torpedo) is getting closer"</blockquote></div><div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote></div><div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid=
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">"when it is known that the missile=
has been aimed at that target."</blockquote></div><div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid=
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote></div><div><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px so=
lid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">This does confirm that the thing doe=
s not itself have the intention to do what it does, a torpedoe does not &qu=
ot;think" or "intend" to do what it does. The speaker does a=
lso not "intend" what is happening. He is neutral as describing w=
hat is going on: {chollI' peng} is to me the same as {pumlI' nagh}.=
</blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>On Sun, =
Feb 26, 2017 at 7:14 AM, SuStel=C2=A0<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailt=
o:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></spa=
n>=C2=A0wrote:</div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><span class=3D"gmail-"><div class=3D"gmail-m_82291=
08544577364148moz-cite-prefix">The restrictive side of the argument says th=
at=C2=A0<i>someone</i>=C2=A0fired the torpedo and set its goal intentionall=
y, and it is the firer's perspective that is generating the=C2=A0<b>-lI=
'.</b>=C2=A0Do you disagree with this argument?</div></span></div></blo=
ckquote><div><br></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div><br></div><div>To me, it feels lik=
e you're begging the question. If I fired the torpedo, I know my intent=
ion, but if I'm the target, do I have to guess whether it was intention=
ally fired? Maybe it was a misfire, like what the crew of the Enterprise th=
ought might have happened to Kronos 1 in ST6. In the heat of battle, it mig=
ht be a friendly fire incident. Intentional or not, I don't care; the t=
orpedo has a known end point, and that end point is <i>me</i>.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>More importantly, if we're arguing about the the intention=
s hidden in the minds of people we can't see, we're probably inject=
ing our own thoughts into the sentence rather than unpacking its meaning.</=
div></div><div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40p=
x;border:none;padding:0px"><div>On the other hand, if Klingons do exactly t=
hat sort of thinking whenever they construct a sentence, that's an impo=
rtant cultural difference that any competent field linguist would take the =
time to make clear. It would merit more discussion that a single sentence s=
aying it's <i>possible </i>to <i>consider</i>=C2=A0<b>-lI'</b>=C2=
=A0a continuous version of <b>-ta'</b>.</div></blockquote><blockquote s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><br></div></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div>For these reasons, I favor the argument against intentio=
nal progress. I think the argument in favor puts too much stress on just on=
e sentence of TKD, and the canon evidence is inconclusive at best.<div><br>=
</div><div>bI'reng</div></div>
--94eb2c032858303bf20549acbf6f--
--===============0010659615160761001==
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
--===============0010659615160761001==--
