[111565] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] One more day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 13 06:56:09 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:18:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOsms-X0Qp2g14SyesZrtLBoa0zsh=T_WbpmhDeu=mfQ1g@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.
--===============0310901835826834991==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------2A3509E36A9947DCEB184AF9"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2A3509E36A9947DCEB184AF9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/10/2017 12:00 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, what kinds of "noun series" modelled along
> variations of *beyHom bey bey'a'* would also feel right or wrong to
> you (and other Klingonists reading this)?
>
> * Using a *-Hom/-0/-'a'* series in a non-direct-object role, e.g.:
> *Qe' chu' luSuchtaH ghomHom ghom ghom'a'* /"Bigger and bigger
> crowds visited the new restaurant; the new restaurant drew
> ever-increasing crowds."/
>
Works for me. I don't think its position in the sentence has any bearing
on how it's interpreted.
> * Using a different set of suffixes that suggest some other kind of
> spectrum, e.g.: *qa'qoq qa'Hey qa' qa'na' vIleghtaH* /"I was
> dismissive of the idea at first but I am increasingly certain that
> I'm seeing an actual spirit."/ (This is an awkward translation.)
>
I don't see these as a spectrum, and these suffixes don't express what I
thought of the nouns at the time; they tell what I think of them when I
say the sentence. At best I would interpret this as my seeing something
someone called a spirit but wasn't, then something I think was a spirit,
then a spirit, then something that was definitely a spirit. I'm seeing
different things in sequence. But there's no natural interpretation of
these as a sequence, so my instinct would be add a conjunction afterward
and explain the sequence separately.
> * Not using the same base noun but with a series implied anyway,
> e.g.: *jajlo' po pov tlhom puH DujDaj tI'taH */"He worked on his
> car from dawn to dusk." /(This example also uses a
> non-direct-object series, in this case a series of timestamps.)
>
Because the sequence is obvious, I could accept this. I would expect
this to be received something like "*jajlo' *(ok)*po* (all morning,
huh?) *pov* (wow, long time!) *tlhom* (still going?!) *puH DujDaj tI'taH.*
> * Nouns that only imply a series in context: *'awje' qa'vIn wornagh
> DItlhutlhtaH* /"We started with 'root beer', then had coffee, and
> then we drank warnog."/
>
Same reaction as with the time stamps. *'awje'* (ok) *qa'vIn* (still
going?) *wornagh* (wow, all that?!)*DItlhutlhtaH.* But this one really
wouldn't make any difference if you conjoined them with *je:* the sense
of sequence is not very strong.
But none of these strikes me as so simply unambiguous as the
howl-crescendo. You have to work at interpreting them. Stringing along
nouns isn't just a listed sequence; it's a single concept expressed in a
sequence of related words. The concept isn't "sequence"; it's "thing
that changes in this sequential way."
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------2A3509E36A9947DCEB184AF9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<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 10/10/2017 12:00 PM, nIqolay Q
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsms-X0Qp2g14SyesZrtLBoa0zsh=T_WbpmhDeu=mfQ1g@mail.gmail.com">
<div>Just out of curiosity, what kinds of "noun series" modelled
along variations of <b>beyHom bey bey'a'</b> would also feel
right or wrong to you (and other Klingonists reading this)?<br>
</div>
<ul>
<li>Using a <b>-Hom/-0/-'a'</b> series in a non-direct-object
role, e.g.: <b>Qe' chu' luSuchtaH ghomHom ghom ghom'a'</b> <i>"Bigger
and bigger crowds visited the new restaurant; the new
restaurant drew ever-increasing crowds."</i></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Works for me. I don't think its position in the sentence has any
bearing on how it's interpreted.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsms-X0Qp2g14SyesZrtLBoa0zsh=T_WbpmhDeu=mfQ1g@mail.gmail.com">
<ul>
<li>Using a different set of suffixes that suggest some other
kind of spectrum, e.g.: <b>qa'qoq qa'Hey qa' qa'na' vIleghtaH</b>
<i>"I was dismissive of the idea at first but I am
increasingly certain that I'm seeing an actual spirit."</i>
(This is an awkward translation.)</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't see these as a spectrum, and these suffixes don't express
what I thought of the nouns at the time; they tell what I think of
them when I say the sentence. At best I would interpret this as my
seeing something someone called a spirit but wasn't, then
something I think was a spirit, then a spirit, then something that
was definitely a spirit. I'm seeing different things in sequence.
But there's no natural interpretation of these as a sequence, so
my instinct would be add a conjunction afterward and explain the
sequence separately.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsms-X0Qp2g14SyesZrtLBoa0zsh=T_WbpmhDeu=mfQ1g@mail.gmail.com">
<ul>
<li>Not using the same base noun but with a series implied
anyway, e.g.: <b>jajlo' po pov tlhom puH DujDaj tI'taH </b><i>"He
worked on his car from dawn to dusk." </i>(This example
also uses a non-direct-object series, in this case a series of
timestamps.)</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Because the sequence is obvious, I could accept this. I would
expect this to be received something like "<b>jajlo' </b>(ok)<b>
po</b> (all morning, huh?) <b>pov</b> (wow, long time!) <b>tlhom</b>
(still going?!) <b>puH DujDaj tI'taH.</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsms-X0Qp2g14SyesZrtLBoa0zsh=T_WbpmhDeu=mfQ1g@mail.gmail.com">
<ul>
<li>Nouns that only imply a series in context: <b>'awje' qa'vIn
wornagh DItlhutlhtaH</b> <i>"We started with 'root beer',
then had coffee, and then we drank warnog."</i></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Same reaction as with the time stamps. <b>'awje'</b> (ok) <b>qa'vIn</b>
(still going?) <b>wornagh</b> (wow, all that?!)<b> DItlhutlhtaH.</b>
But this one really wouldn't make any difference if you conjoined
them with <b>je:</b> the sense of sequence is not very strong.<br>
</p>
<p>But none of these strikes me as so simply unambiguous as the
howl-crescendo. You have to work at interpreting them. Stringing
along nouns isn't just a listed sequence; it's a single concept
expressed in a sequence of related words. The concept isn't
"sequence"; it's "thing that changes in this sequential way."<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>
--------------2A3509E36A9947DCEB184AF9--
--===============0310901835826834991==
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
--===============0310901835826834991==--
