[109850] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: chep
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Jul 7 11:17:06 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 11:16:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJninsQub79ac=CsjTqXiriZP7iFdguoDKwDvecxa96Dg@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.
--===============1045944462003926470==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------89128AD872C42D4AA8B421A7"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------89128AD872C42D4AA8B421A7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/7/2017 10:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> The verb {chep} means "to be prosperous, to prosper", and so we have
> the {yIchep} for "prosper !" (imperative).
>
> But if the only definition given to {chep} was "to be prosperous",
> then we couldn't have the {yIchep} and so we would have
> {yIchep'eghmoH}, right ?
Yes, *yIchep* violates KGT's rule that imperative verbs expressing
states or qualities just include *-'egh* and *-moH.* The rule has been
violated elsewhere too, mostly but not always before KGT was published.
> ..and with regards to the {Dab} on the paq'batlh example.
>
> A little bird told me, that according to the KLI mailing list
> 1999.07.19, "In Klingon, when one lives at a place, he or she is
> thought of as occupying or inhabiting it. That is, he or she is not
> seen as doing something at a location, but rather as doing something
> to it"
>
> So in this context, the {'op ben pa' Dab ngan} should be written
> instead {'op ben pa' luDab ngan} for "some years ago inhabitants
> resided the there".
>
> The only interpretation of the canon sentence which I could find,
> in-keeping with the above list's comment, is "some years ago an
> inhabitant resided the there". But I don't think this is the intended
> meaning; if only one resides somewhere, then this somewhere hardly
> qualifies as being alive and prosperous.
I can think of three possibilities:
1. It was supposed to be *luDab,* and the *lu-* was erroneously dropped.
2. The subject is singular: /some years ago an inhabitant inhabited
there./ This is not an unreasonable way to render literally the
figurative /[the land] was alive,/ though I would have expected
plural inhabitants.
3. It is using *pa'* as a non-subject, non-object noun placed before
the OVS structure, and *Dab* here has no object: /some years ago,
thereabouts, inhabitants inhabited (in general)./ This is not
actually ungrammatical, just a bit odd.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------89128AD872C42D4AA8B421A7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/7/2017 10:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJninsQub79ac=CsjTqXiriZP7iFdguoDKwDvecxa96Dg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">The verb {chep} means "to be prosperous, to prosper", and so we have
the {yIchep} for "prosper !" (imperative).
But if the only definition given to {chep} was "to be prosperous",
then we couldn't have the {yIchep} and so we would have
{yIchep'eghmoH}, right ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yes, <b>yIchep</b> violates KGT's rule that imperative verbs
expressing states or qualities just include <b>-'egh</b> and <b>-moH.</b>
The rule has been violated elsewhere too, mostly but not always
before KGT was published.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJninsQub79ac=CsjTqXiriZP7iFdguoDKwDvecxa96Dg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">..and with regards to the {Dab} on the paq'batlh example.
A little bird told me, that according to the KLI mailing list
1999.07.19, "In Klingon, when one lives at a place, he or she is
thought of as occupying or inhabiting it. That is, he or she is not
seen as doing something at a location, but rather as doing something
to it"
So in this context, the {'op ben pa' Dab ngan} should be written
instead {'op ben pa' luDab ngan} for "some years ago inhabitants
resided the there".
The only interpretation of the canon sentence which I could find,
in-keeping with the above list's comment, is "some years ago an
inhabitant resided the there". But I don't think this is the intended
meaning; if only one resides somewhere, then this somewhere hardly
qualifies as being alive and prosperous.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I can think of three possibilities:</p>
<ol>
<li>It was supposed to be <b>luDab,</b> and the <b>lu-</b> was
erroneously dropped.</li>
<li>The subject is singular: <i>some years ago an inhabitant
inhabited there.</i> This is not an unreasonable way to render
literally the figurative <i>[the land] was alive,</i> though I
would have expected plural inhabitants.<br>
</li>
<li>It is using <b>pa'</b> as a non-subject, non-object noun
placed before the OVS structure, and <b>Dab</b> here has no
object: <i>some years ago, thereabouts, inhabitants inhabited
(in general).</i> This is not actually ungrammatical, just a
bit odd.<br>
</li>
</ol>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------89128AD872C42D4AA8B421A7--
--===============1045944462003926470==
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
--===============1045944462003926470==--
