[111110] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Nouns in apposition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunenoS)
Sat Sep 23 03:21:55 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <959d18cc-57ca-8842-8f2c-4390ac0532d9@trimboli.name>
From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:55:07 +0300
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============7420712754580619811==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c124dc2dda8c505599f52cb"
--94eb2c124dc2dda8c505599f52cb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
What actually makes me wonder, is when the two noun phrases are equated
with each other and when not.
As we discussed, in Aurelie's example {yaSvaD qama'vaD..} the absence of a
{je} after the {qama'vaD} has the result that the the officer is a prisoner.
However, in the {Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq..} example, the absence of a {je}
after the {juHDaq}, doesn't necessarily lead to the two noun phrases being
equated with each other.
I guess, what I'm trying to understand, is whether there is a rule, as to
when the absence of {je} will lead to the equation of the noun phrases with
each other and when not.
Is there such a rule, or is it something which is decided each time based
on context ? Or maybe even on which type-5 noun suffix is actually used ?
Because in Aurelie's example we have a {-vaD}, while in mine we have a
{-Daq}.
qunnoq
On Sep 20, 2017 4:36 PM, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 9/20/2017 9:02 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> Suppose I write the sentence:
>
> {Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq qajatlh, latlh be' vImuSHa'}
>
> "At Qo'noS at your mother's house I told you, that I love another woman".
>
> Do you agree with the above translation, or is it, that due to the absence
> of a {je} after the {juHDaq}, the meaning becomes "at your mother's house
> which is Qo'noS I told you, that I love another woman" ?
>
> You could interpret it that way. I don't think the lack of a *je* makes
> the difference. It could also be interpreted as two separate locatives that
> both apply simultaneously, one being of a different scope than another.
>
> In a cavern, in a canyon
> Excavating for a mine
> Dwelt a miner, forty-niner
> And his daughter, Clementine.
>
> In the verse, the locatives *in a cavern* and *in a canyon* are not in
> apposition to each other. The cavern is within the canyon. The subjects of
> the sentence both have appositional pairs: *a miner* = *forty-niner* and *his
> daughter* = *Clementine.*
>
> In your Klingon sentence, it's possible that *SoSlI' juH* is within the
> scope of *Qo'noS.*
>
> If the sentence did have a *je,* the meaning would be different:
>
>
> *Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq je qajatlh **I speak to you on Kronos and in
> your mother's home*
>
> Here it's possible that you speak to me in both of those places, but not
> in a single utterance. One day you speak to me on Kronos; another day you
> speak to me in my mother's house.
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
--94eb2c124dc2dda8c505599f52cb
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto">What actually makes me wonder, is when the two noun phras=
es are equated with each other and when not.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><di=
v dir=3D"auto">As we discussed, in Aurelie's example {yaSvaD qama'v=
aD..} the absence of a {je} after the {qama'vaD} has the result that th=
e the officer is a prisoner.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"a=
uto">However, in the {Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq..} example, the absen=
ce of a {je} after the {juHDaq}, doesn't necessarily lead to the two no=
un phrases being equated with each other.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div dir=3D"auto">I guess, what I'm trying to understand, is whether th=
ere is a rule, as to when the absence of {je} will lead to the equation of =
the noun phrases with each other and when not.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br><=
/div><div dir=3D"auto">Is there such a rule, or is it something which is de=
cided each time based on context ? Or maybe even on which type-5 noun suffi=
x is actually used ? Because in Aurelie's example we have a {-vaD}, whi=
le in mine we have a {-Daq}.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"a=
uto">qunnoq</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote">On Sep 20, 2017 4:36 PM, "SuStel" <<a href=3D"mailto:sus=
tel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attributi=
on"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=20
=20
=20
<div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
<div class=3D"m_5050604824374982226moz-cite-prefix">On 9/20/2017 9:02 A=
M, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<p dir=3D"ltr">Suppose I write the sentence:=C2=A0</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">{Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq qajatlh, latlh be'=
; vImuSHa'}</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">"At Qo'noS at your mother's house I told =
you, that I
love another woman".</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Do you agree with the above translation, or is it,
that due to the absence of a {je} after the {juHDaq}, the
meaning becomes "at your mother's house which is Qo'no=
S I told
you, that I love another woman" ?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You could interpret it that way. I don't think the lack of a <b>=
je</b>
makes the difference. It could also be interpreted as two separate
locatives that both apply simultaneously, one being of a different
scope than another.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In a cavern, in a canyon<br>
Excavating for a mine<br>
Dwelt a miner, forty-niner<br>
And his daughter, Clementine.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the verse, the locatives <i>in a cavern</i> and <i>in a canyon</i=
>
are not in apposition to each other. The cavern is within the
canyon. The subjects of the sentence both have appositional pairs:
<i>a miner</i> =3D <i>forty-niner</i> and <i>his daughter</i> =3D <i>=
Clementine.</i></p>
<p>In your Klingon sentence, it's possible that <b>SoSlI' juH</=
b>
is within the scope of <b>Qo'noS.</b></p>
<p>If the sentence did have a <b>je,</b> the meaning would be
different:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq je qajatlh<br>
</b><i>I speak to you on Kronos and in your mother's home</i></=
p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here it's possible that you speak to me in both of those places,
but not in a single utterance. One day you speak to me on Kronos;
another day you speak to me in my mother's house.<br>
</p>
<pre class=3D"m_5050604824374982226moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20
SuStel
<a class=3D"m_5050604824374982226moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"http://trim=
boli.name" target=3D"_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a=
><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>
--94eb2c124dc2dda8c505599f52cb--
--===============7420712754580619811==
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
--===============7420712754580619811==--
