[109916] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: 'aSya'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Thu Jul 13 15:37:52 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <6011e2dd-b1e2-d3ef-b7f9-eb7ef32fd74c@trimboli.name>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:37:47 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============1055567295101455468==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c04bcea4630bd05543811e4"
--94eb2c04bcea4630bd05543811e4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> On 13 Jul 2017 7:24 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH}
>>> > "island"
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this preferably be {bIQ puH} instead of {bIQpuH} ?
>>>
>>
>> MO tends to lean towards using noun-noun phrases rather than compound
>> nouns but IIRC he's said that it's not a big deal to prefer one way over
>> the other (or something to that effect, at least).
>>
> On 7/13/2017 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> So we can glue two nouns together ?
>
> Let's take the phrase *baS 'In* *metal drum.* Let's suppose you've
> learned it as a single word, *baS'In.* Now tell me the word for a drum
> that you THINK is made of metal.
>
> If you said *baS'InHey,* that means *thing you think is a metal drum,*
> not something you know is a drum but which you only think is made of metal.
>
> If you said *baSHey'In,* okay, that means what I asked, but now you can
> put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really dealing with two
> words after all, and just taking away the space punctuation? Exactly what
> have you accomplished by "gluing" those nouns together, then taking them
> apart again long enough to shove a suffix in there? How is it any different
> than just saying *baSHey 'In?*
>
Let's take the phrase *DIvI' may' Duj* *Federation battle cruiser.* Let's
suppose you've learned it as a single word, *DIvI'may'Duj.* Now tell me the
word for a battle cruiser that is affiliated with a group you THINK is the
Federation.
If you said *DIvI'may'DujHey,* that means *thing you think is a Federation
battle cruiser,* not something you know is a battle cruiser but which is
affiliated with a group you only think is the Federation.
If you said *DIvI'Heymay'Duj,* okay, that means what I asked, but now you
can put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really dealing with
three words after all, and just taking away the space punctuation? Exactly
what have you accomplished by "gluing" those nouns together, then taking
them apart again long enough to shove a suffix in there? How is it any
different than just saying *DIvI'Hey may' Duj?*
To be less of a *petaQ* about it: The point of leaving out spaces between
nouns and/or making them into a single compound noun is to emphasize the
relationship between those nouns, to say that both (or all three) concepts
are inherent or essential parts of the thing being discussed, and not
merely incidental. To use a contrived example, *maS puH Duj* could be
written as, say, *maS puHDuj* (to emphasize that this is a land vehicle,
and that, incidentally, it is on the moon or somehow related to a moon, but
the concept of doing things on a moon is not an essential part of its
nature) or perhaps *maSpuH Duj* (to emphasize that the moon's terrain is a
significant concept in and of itself -- perhaps it has some unique
geological feature -- and then, additionally, there's a vehicle that is
somehow involved with that terrain that is being discussed), or just
straight up *maSpuHDuj* (which would emphasize that being on moon land is
an inherent part of the vehicle's design, like, say, an Apollo lunar
rover). In the end, of course *maS puH Duj* and *maSpuHDuj* mean pretty
much the same thing, but there are nuances and connotations that can be
suggested by how the nouns are grouped together.
Personally, I don't usually combine noun-noun phrases into a single word
(mostly because it's a contentious issue). If I did, I'd mostly just stick
to existing noun-noun phrases for which we have set meanings (like *SorHap*
for wood, *muDDuj* for airplane, or *ghav'uSqan* for steel) since my
intended meaning would have an obvious precedent. And I wouldn't mind if
someone else used *SorHap* et al. either. Conversely, I don't think I'd
accept a simple possessive construction as a compound, since a thing's
owner is rarely an inherent part of its "essential nature"*.* (Although
this is not always the case, e.g., battle cruisers owned by the
Federation.)
It's important to avoid confusion and be understood, but to be honest I
think this issue is far less prone to hazards than it's being presented as
here.
> Related question: If you're squishing words together (and not using
> slang), is a *DeSHom* an arm-bone or a minor arm?
>
Is *DIS* a year or a cave? You have to tell from context, just like every
other homonym in Klingon. I'd probably avoid *DeSHom* for arm-bone even if
I were more inclined to make compound nouns, since it's not really a set
phrase like *Sor Hap* and because *-Hom* is an actual suffix. But in a
bone-related context (or any context where the idea of a "minor arm" was
more nonsensical than "arm bone", which is probably most contexts), I would
probably interpret it as "arm-bone" and just shrug off the ambiguity.
--94eb2c04bcea4630bd05543811e4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0=
px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
=20
=20
=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><span class=3D"gmail-">
<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 13 Jul 2017 7:24 pm, "nIqolay Q&=
quot;
<<a href=3D"mailto:niqolay0@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">niqol=
ay0@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type=3D"attribution">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8=
ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:25
AM, mayqel qunenoS <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailt=
o:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<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 dir=3D"auto"><span>>=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-f=
amily:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">naHQun
also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as
*{bIQpuH}</span>
<div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-s=
erif;font-size:13.696px">>
"island"</span></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-s=
erif;font-size:13.696px"><br>
</span></div>
</span>
<div dir=3D"auto">Shouldn't this preferably be {b=
IQ
puH} instead of {bIQpuH} ?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>MO tends to lean towards using noun-noun phrases
rather than compound nouns but IIRC he's said that
it's not a big deal to prefer one way over the othe=
r
(or something to that effect, at least).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span><span class=3D"gmail-"><div class=3D"gmail-m_-806068078951577436=
8moz-cite-prefix">On 7/13/2017 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div dir=3D"auto">So we can glue two nouns together ?</div>
</blockquote>
</span>Let's take the phrase <b>baS 'In</b> <i>metal drum.</i> =
Let's
suppose you've learned it as a single word, <b>baS'In.</b> No=
w
tell me the word for a drum that you THINK is made of metal.
<p>If you said <b>baS'InHey,</b> that means <i>thing you think is
a metal drum,</i> not something you know is a drum but which you
only think is made of metal.</p>
<p>If you said <b>baSHey'In,</b> okay, that means what I asked, but
now you can put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really
dealing with two words after all, and just taking away the space
punctuation? Exactly what have you accomplished by "gluing"=
those
nouns together, then taking them apart again long enough to shove
a suffix in there? How is it any different than just saying <b>baSHey
'In?</b> </p></div></blockquote><div><p>Let's take the phra=
se <b>DIvI' may' Duj</b> <i>Federation battle cruiser.</i> Let'=
s
suppose you've learned it as a single word, <b>DIvI'may'D=
uj.</b> Now
tell me the word for a battle cruiser that is affiliated with a group=
you THINK is the Federation.</p>
<p>If you said <b>DIvI'may'DujHey,</b> that means <i>thing you =
think is
a Federation battle cruiser,</i> not something you know is a battle=
cruiser but which is affiliated with a group you only think is the Federat=
ion.</p>
<p>If you said <b>DIvI'Heymay'Duj,</b> okay, that means what I =
asked, but
now you can put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really
dealing with three words after all, and just taking away the space
punctuation? Exactly what have you accomplished by "gluing"=
those
nouns together, then taking them apart again long enough to shove
a suffix in there? How is it any different than just saying <b>DIvI&#=
39;Hey may' Duj?</b>=C2=A0</p><p>To be less of a <b>petaQ</b> about it:=
The point of leaving out spaces between nouns and/or making them into a si=
ngle compound noun is to emphasize the relationship between those nouns, to=
say that both (or all three) concepts are inherent or essential parts of t=
he thing being discussed, and not merely incidental. To use a contrived exa=
mple, <b>maS puH Duj</b> could be written as, say, <b>maS puHDuj</b> (to em=
phasize that this is a land vehicle, and that, incidentally, it is on the m=
oon or somehow related to a moon, but the concept of doing things on a moon=
is not an essential part of its nature) or perhaps <b>maSpuH Duj</b> (to e=
mphasize that the moon's terrain is a significant concept in and of its=
elf -- perhaps it has some unique geological feature -- and then, additiona=
lly, there's a vehicle that is somehow involved with that terrain that =
is being discussed), or just straight up <b>maSpuHDuj</b> (which would emph=
asize that being on moon land is an inherent part of the vehicle's desi=
gn, like, say, an Apollo lunar rover). In the end, of course <b>maS puH Duj=
</b> and <b>maSpuHDuj</b> mean pretty much the same thing, but there are nu=
ances and connotations that can be suggested by how the nouns are grouped t=
ogether.<br></p></div><div>Personally, I don't usually combine noun-nou=
n phrases into a single word (mostly because it's a contentious issue).=
If I did, I'd mostly just stick to existing noun-noun phrases for whic=
h we have set meanings (like <b>SorHap</b> for wood, <b>muDDuj</b> for airp=
lane, or <b>ghav'uSqan</b> for steel) since my intended meaning would h=
ave an obvious precedent. And I wouldn't mind if someone else used <b>S=
orHap</b> et al. either. Conversely, I don't think I'd accept a sim=
ple possessive construction as a compound, since a thing's owner is rar=
ely an inherent part of its "essential nature"<b>.</b> (Although =
this is not always the case, e.g., battle cruisers owned by the Federation.=
) <br><br>It's important to avoid confusion and be understood, but to b=
e honest I think this issue is far less prone to hazards than it's bein=
g presented as here. <br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left=
:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
<p>Related question: If you're squishing words together (and not
using slang), is a <b>DeSHom</b> an arm-bone or a minor arm?<span cla=
ss=3D"gmail-HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br></font></span></p></div></b=
lockquote><div>Is <b>DIS</b> a year or a cave? You have to tell from contex=
t, just like every other homonym in Klingon. I'd probably avoid <b>DeSH=
om</b> for arm-bone even if I were more inclined to make compound nouns, si=
nce it's not really a set phrase like <b>Sor Hap</b> and because <b>-Ho=
m</b> is an actual suffix. But in a bone-related context (or any context wh=
ere the idea of a "minor arm" was more nonsensical than "arm=
bone", which is probably most contexts), I would probably interpret i=
t as "arm-bone" and just shrug off the ambiguity.<br></div></div>=
</div></div>
--94eb2c04bcea4630bd05543811e4--
--===============1055567295101455468==
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
--===============1055567295101455468==--
