[109789] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] The problem with pIqaD
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Wed Jul 5 21:53:51 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <ACF6622D959A8842A81E4471BA56A7E05C438237@xm-mbx-06-prod>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 21:53:46 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0852729974658893898==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114497fc23659705539c6382"
--001a114497fc23659705539c6382
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote=
:
> No really new vocabulary but if Okrand wrote or vetted this (anyone know?=
)
> as he may well have done - 1. it's an official announcement; and 2. notic=
e
> the absence of a redundant plural suffix implied with {luwIvlu'ta'} on
> {ghetwI'} - we now have another word for "actor/actress", derived from
> {ghet}:
>
> (HQ 12.3:8): {Qaq} "behave falsely honorably, behave in a falsely
> honorable manner" ... is different from {toj} "deceive" and {ghet}
> "pretend", neither of which has this kind of connection to honor ... {ghe=
t}
> and {ghetwI'} "pretender" generally do not imply deception, but simply
> role-playing.
>
> (De=E2=80=99vID, 11/10/2015): At ... qepHom [2011], Okrand said a bunch =
of things
> about what verbs take what objects ... One of the words that [Okrand] use=
d
> to illustrate this was {ghet}. You can say {vulqangan jIH 'e' vIghet".
>
> in addition to {DawI'} derived from {Da} "behave as, act in the manner of=
"
> used on this list for years, which appeared in the "Message to Kronos":
>
> qatlh tlhIngan lut luja' tera'ngan DawI'pu'lI'?
> Why are your Earthling actors telling a Klingon story? ('u'-MTK)
>
> As for the difference between the two...?
> <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
>
If I had to guess, based mostly on the English glosses and the few bits of
canon, I would interpret the difference in meaning to be that {ghet} is a
much more specific word, implying that someone is intentionally playing a
specific role or behaving as if some counterfactual situation were true.
Whereas {Da} is much more broad, and while it can include some of the
concepts of {ghet}, it can also be used metaphorically, generically, or
specifically, with or without intent, and with or without knowledge that
one is acting in such a manner. However, I am obviously not Maltz.
Personally, I'm more curious about how {lIl} is different from {Da} and
{ghet}.
--001a114497fc23659705539c6382
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Steven Boozer <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu" target=3D"_blank">sboozer@uchicago.ed=
u</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
No really new vocabulary but if Okrand wrote or vetted this (anyone know?) =
as he may well have done - 1. it's an official announcement; and 2. not=
ice the absence of a redundant plural suffix implied with {luwIvlu'ta&#=
39;} on {ghetwI'} - we now have another word for "actor/actress&qu=
ot;, derived from {ghet}:<br>
<br>
(HQ 12.3:8):=C2=A0 {Qaq} "behave falsely honorably, behave in a falsel=
y honorable manner" ... is different from {toj} "deceive" an=
d {ghet} "pretend", neither of which has this kind of connection =
to honor ... {ghet} and {ghetwI'} "pretender" generally do no=
t imply deception, but simply role-playing.<br>
<br>
(De=E2=80=99vID, 11/10/2015):=C2=A0 At ... qepHom [2011], Okrand said a bun=
ch of things about what verbs take what objects ... One of the words that [=
Okrand] used to illustrate this was {ghet}. You can say {vulqangan jIH '=
;e' vIghet".<br>
<br>
in addition to {DawI'} derived from {Da} "behave as, act in the ma=
nner of" used on this list for years, which appeared in the "Mess=
age to Kronos":<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 qatlh tlhIngan lut luja' tera'ngan DawI'pu'lI'?<=
br>
=C2=A0 Why are your Earthling actors telling a Klingon story? ('u'-=
MTK)<br>
<br>
As for the difference between the two...?<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=
=3D"h5"><a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank"></a></div></div></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div>If I had to guess, based mostly on the English glosses and the f=
ew bits of canon, I would interpret the difference in meaning to be that {g=
het} is a much more specific word, implying that someone is intentionally p=
laying a specific role or behaving as if some counterfactual situation were=
true. Whereas {Da} is much more broad, and while it can include some of th=
e concepts of {ghet}, it can also be used metaphorically, generically, or s=
pecifically, with or without intent, and with or without knowledge that one=
is acting in such a manner. However, I am obviously not Maltz.<br><br></di=
v><div>Personally, I'm more curious about how {lIl} is different from {=
Da} and {ghet}.<br></div></div><br></div></div>
--001a114497fc23659705539c6382--
--===============0852729974658893898==
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
--===============0852729974658893898==--
