[111829] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Why not law'wI'pu' ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Thu Feb 21 17:31:10 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:31:04 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <2ff5510f-fc4b-f07f-8cc8-5ddef728accb@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============6390950260879180917==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_E618C031-2014-4D18-9AAA-BAB6316B2A36"
--Apple-Mail=_E618C031-2014-4D18-9AAA-BAB6316B2A36
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
I=E2=80=99m totally with SuStel on this one. {-wI=E2=80=99} is a thing =
which does the verb or one who does the verb. {law=E2=80=99wI=E2=80=99pu=E2=
=80=99}, if it makes any sense at all, would be =E2=80=9Cones capable of =
using language who are each many=E2=80=9D=E2=80=A6, which doesn=E2=80=99t =
really make sense to me. You are working too hard to make a special =
word.
SuStel has already offered appropriate terms for =E2=80=9Cmany =
people=E2=80=9D.
charghwI=E2=80=99 vaghnerya=E2=80=99ngan
rInpa=E2=80=99 bomnIS be=E2=80=99=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99 pI=E2=80=99.
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 2:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
> On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>> It could be translated as "the many," just as qanwI' can be =
translated "the old."
> Actually, I want to counter this. qanwI' can be translated the old =
only in the sense that plural suffixes are optional in Klingon, and =
qanwI'pu' means the old. Assuming no dropped plural suffix, qanwI' only =
means old one.
>=20
> TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of -wI', and it's always explained =
as thing which does or one who does, and even once as thing which is (we =
have since gotten canon for one who is). Nowhere is it explained as =
things which do, those who do, things which are or those who are.
>=20
> I agree that it's a fine point, but I don't think it's rigid so much =
as careful not to stray beyond what we know -wI' does.
>=20
> Again, I'm not saying that the language is necessarily this specific, =
just that the evidence we actually have seems to point this way. Okrand =
could easily clarify with, "Oh, sure, law'wI'pu' means the many," and =
there'd be no problem. You just can't get there with what we have now =
without making an assumption.
>=20
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name =
<http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--Apple-Mail=_E618C031-2014-4D18-9AAA-BAB6316B2A36
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">I=E2=80=99m totally with SuStel on this one. {-wI=E2=80=99} =
is a thing which does the verb or one who does the verb. =
{law=E2=80=99wI=E2=80=99pu=E2=80=99}, if it makes any sense at all, =
would be =E2=80=9Cones capable of using language who are each =
many=E2=80=9D=E2=80=A6, which doesn=E2=80=99t really make sense to me. =
You are working too hard to make a special word.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">SuStel has already offered appropriate =
terms for =E2=80=9Cmany people=E2=80=9D.</div><br class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">
<div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: =
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=3D""><div =
style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: =
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: =
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: =
none;">charghwI=E2=80=99 vaghnerya=E2=80=99ngan<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">rInpa=E2=80=99 bomnIS be=E2=80=99=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99 =
pI=E2=80=99.</div><div style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, =
0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: =
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; =
text-decoration: none;" class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Feb 21, 2019, at 2:03 PM, SuStel <<a =
href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" =
class=3D"">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D"">
=20
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUTF-8" class=3D"">
=20
<div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" class=3D"">
<div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey =
wrote:<br class=3D"">
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" =
cite=3D"mid:CABSTb1dhJq3aWBA-A-nD0ekPZojy5QxHHJeE=3Dx2avYxKv9T01w@mail.gma=
il.com" class=3D"">It
could be translated as "the many," just as <b class=3D"">qanwI'</b> =
can be
translated "the old."</blockquote><p class=3D"">Actually, I want =
to counter this. <b class=3D"">qanwI'</b> can be
translated <i class=3D"">the old</i> only in the sense that plural =
suffixes
are optional in Klingon, and <b class=3D"">qanwI'pu'</b> means <i =
class=3D"">the old.</i>
Assuming no dropped plural suffix, <b class=3D"">qanwI'</b> only =
means <i class=3D"">old
one.</i></p><p class=3D"">TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of =
<b class=3D"">-wI',</b> and it's
always explained as <i class=3D"">thing which does</i> or <i =
class=3D"">one who does,</i>
and even once as <i class=3D"">thing which is</i> (we have since =
gotten
canon for <i class=3D"">one who is</i>). Nowhere is it explained =
as <i class=3D"">things
which do</i><i class=3D"">, </i><i class=3D"">those who do, =
things which are</i> or <i class=3D"">those
who are.</i></p><p class=3D"">I agree that it's a fine point, =
but I don't think it's rigid so
much as careful not to stray beyond what we know <b =
class=3D"">-wI'</b>
does.</p><p class=3D"">Again, I'm not saying that the language is =
necessarily this
specific, just that the evidence we actually have seems to point
this way. Okrand could easily clarify with, "Oh, sure, <b =
class=3D"">law'wI'pu'</b>
means <i class=3D"">the many,</i>" and there'd be no problem. You =
just can't
get there with what we have now without making an assumption.<br =
class=3D"">
</p>
<pre class=3D"moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20
SuStel
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" =
href=3D"http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">tlhIngan-Hol=
mailing list<br class=3D""><a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" =
class=3D"">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br =
class=3D"">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_E618C031-2014-4D18-9AAA-BAB6316B2A36--
--===============6390950260879180917==
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
--===============6390950260879180917==--
