[111403] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] DSC Klingon Trailer transcription (NOT offlist)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 6 03:11:07 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:54:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <e7526966-7e15-ad93-c7d6-58b85a4606bc@gmx.de>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8598911732428951664==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------A3714F716BF294D8E1FD6797"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------A3714F716BF294D8E1FD6797
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 10/4/2017 2:38 PM, Lieven wrote:
> Am 04.10.2017 um 20:26 schrieb SuStel:
>> It's too bad you're not going to reply, because I'd LOVE to know why
>> you think Okrand went out of his way, twice in that article, to
>> separate first- and second-person objects from third-person objects,
>> but he REALLY meant that ANY objects can do this.
>
> Because in the third person, this becomes ambiguous:
> {ghIch qanob} can only be "I give you the nose"
> {ghIch vInob} can be both be "it" and "him".
>
> But that does not mean that it's not correct to do.
>
> I am glad you chose that example, by the way. You say {Soj DInob} can
> only mean "we give foods", but that's indeed nonsense, even in
> English. Context makes clear it's "we give them food".
/We give foods/ is perfectly reasonable in English. /Foods/ means
different kinds of food, each considered separately. If we give foods,
then maybe we give apples and corn and bread and cheese. All of these
could be described as a single mass, /food,/ but if we consider each
separately, they are /foods./ Here are two examples I just got off of
dictionary.com: /Breakfast foods have become very popular; /Fare /refers
to the whole range of foods that may nourish a person or animal./
Is *Soj* only a mass-noun in Klingon? I dunno. But you can't make the
argument by appealing to it being one in English, because it isn't
exclusively one.
As for context, the example was given without any.
> I'd like to point at the end of the message:
>
> "I realize that this answer [...] is not by any means a complete
> discussion of the several topics mentioned and I may have phrased
> things not as clearly as they might be phrased. As a result, this
> answer may end up just raising other questions."
>
> But - again - we cannot solve this ourselves without imput from Maltz.
If we cannot solve this ourselves without input from Maltz, then how do
you justify using it in the transcript and calling it correct? At the
very best you can say (with very silly reasoning) that we don't know if
you can do it, because Okrand didn't address using prefixes for
third-person objects. At the very best. But you're defending it as if it
never even occurred to you that there's any question about the prefix
trick in the third person.
And "I may have phrased things not as clearly as they might be phrased"
certainly aligns with my claim that saying "it doesn't work in the third
person" might very well mean "One day someone might come up with a very
silly interpretation of what I'm saying here because I wasn't as
explicit as he wanted."
But again, I'll consider any explanation you might have, and still have
not offered, as to why Okrand went out of his way twice to separate
first- and second-person objects from third-person objects.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------A3714F716BF294D8E1FD6797
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 10/4/2017 2:38 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e7526966-7e15-ad93-c7d6-58b85a4606bc@gmx.de">Am
04.10.2017 um 20:26 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">It's too bad
you're not going to reply, because I'd LOVE to know why you
think Okrand went out of his way, twice in that article, to
separate first- and second-person objects from third-person
objects, but he REALLY meant that ANY objects can do this.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Because in the third person, this becomes ambiguous:
<br>
{ghIch qanob} can only be "I give you the nose"
<br>
{ghIch vInob} can be both be "it" and "him".
<br>
<br>
But that does not mean that it's not correct to do.
<br>
<br>
I am glad you chose that example, by the way. You say {Soj DInob}
can only mean "we give foods", but that's indeed nonsense, even in
English. Context makes clear it's "we give them food".
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><i>We give foods</i> is perfectly reasonable in English. <i>Foods</i>
means different kinds of food, each considered separately. If we
give foods, then maybe we give apples and corn and bread and
cheese. All of these could be described as a single mass, <i>food,</i>
but if we consider each separately, they are <i>foods.</i> Here
are two examples I just got off of dictionary.com: <i>Breakfast
foods have become very popular; </i>Fare <i>refers to the
whole range of foods that may nourish a person or animal.</i><br>
</p>
<p>Is <b>Soj</b> only a mass-noun in Klingon? I dunno. But you
can't make the argument by appealing to it being one in English,
because it isn't exclusively one.</p>
<p>As for context, the example was given without any.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e7526966-7e15-ad93-c7d6-58b85a4606bc@gmx.de">
I'd like to point at the end of the message:
<br>
<br>
"I realize that this answer [...] is not by any means a complete
discussion of the several topics mentioned and I may have phrased
things not as clearly as they might be phrased. As a result, this
answer may end up just raising other questions."
<br>
<br>
But - again - we cannot solve this ourselves without imput from
Maltz.</blockquote>
<p>If we cannot solve this ourselves without input from Maltz, then
how do you justify using it in the transcript and calling it
correct? At the very best you can say (with very silly reasoning)
that we don't know if you can do it, because Okrand didn't address
using prefixes for third-person objects. At the very best. But
you're defending it as if it never even occurred to you that
there's any question about the prefix trick in the third person.</p>
<p>And "I may have phrased things not as clearly as they might be
phrased" certainly aligns with my claim that saying "it doesn't
work in the third person" might very well mean "One day someone
might come up with a very silly interpretation of what I'm saying
here because I wasn't as explicit as he wanted."</p>
<p>But again, I'll consider any explanation you might have, and
still have not offered, as to why Okrand went out of his way twice
to separate first- and second-person objects from third-person
objects.<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>
--------------A3714F716BF294D8E1FD6797--
--===============8598911732428951664==
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
--===============8598911732428951664==--
