[111622] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] One more day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Sat Oct 14 13:51:15 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <77550e19-b491-47be-bc59-9be16fda2bfe@trimboli.name>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:51:16 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0236027386044807685==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142dc50a36fa3055b341d79"
--001a1142dc50a36fa3055b341d79
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:18 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> Works for me. I don't think its position in the sentence has any bearing
> on how it's interpreted.
>
Same, I figured this was the least-controversial variation that I posted.
> 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.
>
It's interesting that you don't see these suffixes as a spectrum. I thought
it was a good example of a spectrum of something like "increasing belief on
my part that this thing can or should be described by this noun", from
*-qoq* ("obviously not such a thing") to *-na'* ("definitely such a
thing"). That's a good point about how they apply at the time of speaking,
though. (At first I was going to argue that in the right context they could
be taken to mean "what I thought of them at the time", like if they were
contrasted with each other in some kind of temporal sequence, but I think
that's mostly just because I really liked that example and want to salvage
it somehow.)
>
> 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.
>
This is also the example I liked least.
> The concept isn't "sequence"; it's "thing that changes in this sequential
> way."
>
That's a good distinction to keep in mind.
--001a1142dc50a36fa3055b341d79
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:18 PM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>><=
/span> wrote:<span class=3D""></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div te=
xt=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p>Works for me. I don't think its p=
osition in the sentence has any
bearing on how it's interpreted.</p></div></blockquote><div>Same,=
I figured this was the least-controversial variation that I posted.<br></d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"=
><span class=3D"">
</span><p>I don't see these as a spectrum, and these suffixes don&#=
39;t express
what I thought of the nouns at the time; they tell what I think of
them when I say the sentence. <br></p></div></blockquote><div text=3D=
"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">It's interesting that you don't see t=
hese suffixes as a spectrum. I thought it was a good example of a spectrum =
of something like "increasing belief on my part that this thing can or=
should be described by this noun", from <b>-qoq</b> ("obviously =
not such a thing") to <b>-na'</b> ("definitely such a thing&q=
uot;). That's a good point about how they apply at the time of speaking=
, though. (At first I was going to argue that in the right context they cou=
ld be taken to mean "what I thought of them at the time", like if=
they were contrasted with each other in some kind of temporal sequence, bu=
t I think that's mostly just because I really liked that example and wa=
nt to salvage it somehow.)<span class=3D""></span><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,20=
4,204);padding-left:1ex"><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.</p></b=
lockquote><p>This is also the example I liked least.<br></p><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid =
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p>The concept isn't
"sequence"; it's "thing that changes in this seque=
ntial way."<span class=3D"HOEnZb"></span><br></p></blockquote></div></=
div>That's a good distinction to keep in mind.<br></div></div>
--001a1142dc50a36fa3055b341d79--
--===============0236027386044807685==
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
--===============0236027386044807685==--
