[111453] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Verbs which contain for, about, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 6 06:16:10 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:58:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cLD5+MokyvkPqPnuNayz+NppGXpX6m6PQVhpyQFkr+XPA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8867615590028232882==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------6ADEB5B3C82EE067ECEAC625"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------6ADEB5B3C82EE067ECEAC625
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 10/5/2017 2:45 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> There are some verbs, which contain the concept of "for, about, etc".
> For example {SaH} "care about, be concerned about".
>
> And we have said, that when we are using these verbs, we don't place
> an additional {-vaD} on the word, which would take a {-vaD}, if the
> "for, about, etc" concept wasn't included in the verb.
Don't think of *SaH* as containing the concept of /for, about/, etc.
Think of it in Klingon. If you *SaH* a thing, you consider it and like
it and pay attention to it. You're not doing anything "for" anything;
you're *SaH*ing something.
> For example, we say {romuluSngan vISaHbe'} and not {romuluSnganvaD
> vISaHbe'}.
/I do not *SaH*//the Romulan/ versus /I do not *SaH* it for the Romulan./
> But I need to ask.. If we did write {romuluSnganvaD vISaHbe'}, would
> that be wrong ?
It doesn't mean /I *SaH* the Romulan; /it means /I *SaH* it for the
Romulan./
> And in case someone wonders why I'm asking..
>
> In cases where I wanted to say "I gave to myself a present", since
> there is no prefix for "me-myself", I wrote {qunnoqvaD nob vInob}.
>
> But if I want to say "we care only for us", and I want to write
> {maHvaD neH maSaH}, I stumble upon the fact that the concept of {-vaD}
> is already included in the {SaH}.
— in the chart notes subject-object combinations which cannot be
expressed with the Klingon verb prefix system. For such meanings,
suffixes (section 4.2.1) and/or pronouns (section 5.1) must be used.
—TKD
There is no prefix for "me to myself," so use suffixes and/or prefixes.
*jIHvaD nob vInob
*/I give a present to myself/
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------6ADEB5B3C82EE067ECEAC625
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 10/5/2017 2:45 PM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLD5+MokyvkPqPnuNayz+NppGXpX6m6PQVhpyQFkr+XPA@mail.gmail.com">There
are some verbs, which contain the concept of "for, about, etc".
For example {SaH} "care about, be concerned about".
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">And we have said, that when we are using these
verbs, we don't place an additional {-vaD} on the word, which
would take a {-vaD}, if the "for, about, etc" concept wasn't
included in the verb.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Don't think of <b>SaH</b> as containing the concept of <i>for,
about</i>, etc. Think of it in Klingon. If you <b>SaH</b> a
thing, you consider it and like it and pay attention to it. You're
not doing anything "for" anything; you're <b>SaH</b>ing
something.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLD5+MokyvkPqPnuNayz+NppGXpX6m6PQVhpyQFkr+XPA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">For example, we say {romuluSngan vISaHbe'} and not
{romuluSnganvaD vISaHbe'}.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><i>I do not <b>SaH</b></i><i> the Romulan</i> versus <i>I do
not <b>SaH</b> it for the Romulan.</i><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLD5+MokyvkPqPnuNayz+NppGXpX6m6PQVhpyQFkr+XPA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">But I need to ask.. If we did write
{romuluSnganvaD vISaHbe'}, would that be wrong ?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It doesn't mean <i>I <b>SaH</b> the Romulan; </i>it means <i>I
<b>SaH</b> it for the Romulan.</i><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLD5+MokyvkPqPnuNayz+NppGXpX6m6PQVhpyQFkr+XPA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">And in case someone wonders why I'm asking..</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In cases where I wanted to say "I gave to myself a
present", since there is no prefix for "me-myself", I wrote
{qunnoqvaD nob vInob}.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But if I want to say "we care only for us", and I
want to write {maHvaD neH maSaH}, I stumble upon the fact that
the concept of {-vaD} is already included in the {SaH}.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>— in the chart notes subject-object combinations which cannot
be expressed with the Klingon verb prefix system. For such
meanings, suffixes (section 4.2.1) and/or pronouns (section 5.1)
must be used. —TKD</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no prefix for "me to myself," so use suffixes and/or
prefixes.</p>
<p><b>jIHvaD nob vInob<br>
</b><i>I give a present to myself</i></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>
--------------6ADEB5B3C82EE067ECEAC625--
--===============8867615590028232882==
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
--===============8867615590028232882==--
