[110827] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] With "joq" - how do we choose the right verb
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Sep 1 14:36:10 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:07:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: <59a97deb.84901c0a.b32e.4404@mx.google.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============0112595565354337569==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------04B1DBDB96A001CD0C912762"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------04B1DBDB96A001CD0C912762
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 9/1/2017 11:32 AM, demonchaux.aurelie wrote:
> Thank you all for your replies and thoughts on this !
>
> /HIq qIj reghuluS 'Iw HIq ghap jab
>
> They serve Black Ale or Regulan bloodwine. (CK)
>
> {A B ghap jab} “they serve them” not {lujab} “they serve it”/
>
>
> This is a great example, and I think this gives us the solution, thank
> you for digging it up!
>
> I was convinced that if A and B were both singular, "A B ghap" would
> be considered singular when choosing the verb prefix, and that's why I
> thought joq might be singular in those cases, and I couldnt choose
> between singular or plural. But this proves the contrary !
>
> So, to sum up, whether A and B are singular or plural, and whether we
> use je or ghap, A + B + je / ghap is always plural.
>
> Logically, A + B + joq is thus also always plural !
>
> So the correct sentence in my example is:
> vIraS Hol tlhIngan Hol joq DIghojnIS
>
> tuQaHmo' Satlho' :)
It's an interesting data point, but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.
Okrand forgets the prefix *lu-* often enough that he even points out
that Klingons forget *lu-* more than any other prefix.
Then there's this example from /HolQeD/ 12:2/,/ which seems to
contradict your analysis:
*naQ megh'an 'er'In ghap yI'uch
*/grasp either end of the stick/
The words *'er'In* and *megh'an* are /definitely/ intended to be
singular here. If a *ghap* construction always got interpreted as
plural, the verb should have been *tI'uch,* but it wasn't. And yes,
sometimes Okrand forgets to use *tI-* and uses *yI-* instead. So we have
two contradictory conclusions, each of which is based on examples with
grammatical rules that Okrand commonly gets wrong.
Finally, even in English we don't use one consistent rule. /Either Bob
or Linda are coming over./ A finicky grammarian would complain that the
verb should have been /is;/ nobody else would even have noticed. I could
easily see a native English speaker, constructing a Klingon sentence,
following the same fuzzy rules.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------04B1DBDB96A001CD0C912762
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<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 9/1/2017 11:32 AM,
demonchaux.aurelie wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59a97deb.84901c0a.b32e.4404@mx.google.com">Thank you all
for your replies and thoughts on this !<br>
<br>
<i>
HIq qIj reghuluS 'Iw HIq ghap jab <br>
<br>
They serve Black Ale or Regulan bloodwine. (CK)<br>
<br>
{A B ghap jab} “they serve them” not {lujab} “they serve it”</i><br>
<br>
<br>
This is a great example, and I think this gives us the solution,
thank you for digging it up! <br>
<br>
I was convinced that if A and B were both singular, "A B ghap"
would be considered singular when choosing the verb prefix, and
that's why I thought joq might be singular in those cases, and I
couldnt choose between singular or plural. But this proves the
contrary !<br>
<br>
So, to sum up, whether A and B are singular or plural, and whether
we use je or ghap, A + B + je / ghap is always plural.<br>
<br>
Logically, A + B + joq is thus also always plural ! <br>
<br>
So the correct sentence in my example is: <br>
vIraS Hol tlhIngan Hol joq DIghojnIS<br>
<br>
tuQaHmo' Satlho' :)</blockquote>
<p>It's an interesting data point, but I wouldn't jump to that
conclusion. Okrand forgets the prefix <b>lu-</b> often enough
that he even points out that Klingons forget <b>lu-</b> more than
any other prefix.</p>
<p>Then there's this example from <i>HolQeD</i> 12:2<i>,</i> which
seems to contradict your analysis:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>naQ megh'an 'er'In ghap yI'uch<br>
</b><i>grasp either end of the stick</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The words <b>'er'In</b> and <b>megh'an</b> are <i>definitely</i>
intended to be singular here. If a <b>ghap</b> construction
always got interpreted as plural, the verb should have been <b>tI'uch,</b>
but it wasn't. And yes, sometimes Okrand forgets to use <b>tI-</b>
and uses <b>yI-</b> instead. So we have two contradictory
conclusions, each of which is based on examples with grammatical
rules that Okrand commonly gets wrong.<br>
</p>
<p>Finally, even in English we don't use one consistent rule. <i>Either
Bob or Linda are coming over.</i> A finicky grammarian would
complain that the verb should have been <i>is;</i> nobody else
would even have noticed. I could easily see a native English
speaker, constructing a Klingon sentence, following the same fuzzy
rules.<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>
--------------04B1DBDB96A001CD0C912762--
--===============0112595565354337569==
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
--===============0112595565354337569==--
