[111371] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] DSC Klingon Trailer transcription (NOT offlist)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Thu Oct 5 03:11:04 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <a23be940-78cf-bf94-fdb9-b284aa8a6e69@trimboli.name>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 07:55:31 +0200
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Cc: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============9151463089309847716==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140f0104b6424055ac65f2a"
--001a1140f0104b6424055ac65f2a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can everyone listen to the spoken sentence and report what they hear?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DNZEQVw3uV9M&feature=3Dyoutu.be&t=3D44s
Admittedly, he speaks quickly and it's not absolutely clear either way. I
think I hear {wI-}, but could be convinced otherwise. (I originally
transcribed {DI-} because it's what in the written subtitles, and while
listening to it my brain didn't register a difference between what I read
and what I was hearing, so it's not that obviously mismatched.)
On 5 October 2017 at 02:45, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 10/4/2017 6:17 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 3:32 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> <sustel@trimbol=
i.name> wrote:
>
> If they're allowed at all, there HAVE to be special circumstances, some s=
pecial explanation that makes them stand apart from the first- and second-p=
erson prefixes, and you have no idea what that explanation might be.
>
> **I** have an idea what that explanation might be. It generalizes the pre=
fix trick to explain things like {tuQmoH} and other uses of {-moH} on alrea=
dy transitive verbs. All it says is that when the prefix appears to violate=
the rule of {rom}, it could be pointing to the "indirect object" beneficia=
ry instead of the (direct) object. Usually the beneficiary is implied by th=
e prefix and the object is explicit, but I also consider cases where the no=
rmal object is missing and the grammatical beneficiary can be stated in its=
place
>
> Yes, this is Lieven's explanation as well. That Okrand has never said.
> Which means when he said "When the indirect object... is first or second
> person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second
> person object may be used," he really meant "When the indirect object... =
is
> a pronoun, the pronominal prefix may agree with that pronoun instead of t=
he
> direct object." There is no distinction whatsoever between person. All
> pronouns may be prefix tricked. So why did he specify first and second
> person pronouns? Twice? Why were all his examples in that message only
> first and second person? And with different numbers? The original questio=
n
> only asked for second person.
>
There's no ambiguity in the sentence, in the sense that we can all
understand {'oH DInob} to mean "we give them it" ("we give it to them"). It
may be one of these cases where something's technically violating the
rules, but everyone understands it, like saying "there's three men and a
baby" instead of "there are...".
--=20
De'vID
--001a1140f0104b6424055ac65f2a
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div>Can everyone listen to the spoken sent=
ence and report what they hear?</div><a href=3D"https://www.youtube.com/wat=
ch?v=3DNZEQVw3uV9M&feature=3Dyoutu.be&t=3D44s">https://www.youtube.=
com/watch?v=3DNZEQVw3uV9M&feature=3Dyoutu.be&t=3D44s</a><br><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Admittedly, he spe=
aks quickly and it's not absolutely clear either way. I think I hear {w=
I-}, but could be convinced otherwise. (I originally transcribed {DI-} beca=
use it's what in the written subtitles, and while listening to it my br=
ain didn't register a difference between what I read and what I was hea=
ring, so it's not that obviously mismatched.)</div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 5 October 2017 at 02:45, SuStel <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blan=
k">sustel@trimboli.name</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">
=20
=20
=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><span class=3D"gmail-">
<div class=3D"gmail-m_-5469912274153288285moz-cite-prefix">On 10/4/2017=
6:17 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<pre>On Oct 4, 2017, at 3:32 PM, SuStel <a class=3D"gmail-m_-54699122=
74153288285moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" targ=
et=3D"_blank"><sustel@trimboli.name></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<pre>If they're allowed at all, there HAVE to be special circum=
stances, some special explanation that makes them stand apart from the firs=
t- and second-person prefixes, and you have no idea what that explanation m=
ight be.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><b class=3D"gmail-m_-5469912274153288285moz-txt-star"><span clas=
s=3D"gmail-m_-5469912274153288285moz-txt-tag">*</span>I<span class=3D"gmail=
-m_-5469912274153288285moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> have an idea what that exp=
lanation might be. It generalizes the prefix trick to explain things like {=
tuQmoH} and other uses of {-moH} on already transitive verbs. All it says i=
s that when the prefix appears to violate the rule of {rom}, it could be po=
inting to the "indirect object" beneficiary instead of the (direc=
t) object. Usually the beneficiary is implied by the prefix and the object =
is explicit, but I also consider cases where the normal object is missing a=
nd the grammatical beneficiary can be stated in its place</pre>
</blockquote>
</span><p>Yes, this is Lieven's explanation as well. That Okrand ha=
s never
said. Which means when he said "When the indirect object... is
first or second
person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or
second
person object may be used," he really meant "When the indir=
ect
object... is a pronoun, the pronominal prefix may agree with that
pronoun instead of the direct object." There is no distinction
whatsoever between person. All pronouns may be prefix tricked. So
why did he specify first and second person pronouns? Twice? Why
were all his examples in that message only first and second
person? And with different numbers? The original question only
asked for second person.</p></div></blockquote></div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_extra"><br></div>There's no ambiguity in the sentence, in the sense=
that we can all understand {'oH DInob} to mean "we give them it&q=
uot; ("we give it to them"). It may be one of these cases where s=
omething's technically violating the rules, but everyone understands it=
, like saying "there's three men and a baby" instead of "=
;there are...".<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"g=
mail_signature">De'vID</div>
</div></div>
--001a1140f0104b6424055ac65f2a--
--===============9151463089309847716==
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
--===============9151463089309847716==--
