[111832] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Why not law'wI'pu' ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ed Bailey)
Fri Feb 22 00:13:56 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <2ff5510f-fc4b-f07f-8cc8-5ddef728accb@trimboli.name>
From: Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:13:55 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============2655945273556364475==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000339b7a058274a8c4"
--000000000000339b7a058274a8c4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:03 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> 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.*
>
Even *qanwI'* singular could be translated as *the old*, if the speaker is
generalizing. Do' DIvI' Hol wa' qech nelbe' tlhIngan ngIq mu'. nel net
jalchugh, Dalqu'choH tlhIngan Hol.
> 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.*
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
I'm with you on disliking *law'wI'pu'*, but only because *law'* is
inherently plural when applied to count nouns. It grates on my ear for the
same reason **ngopmey* would.
Simply because Okrand has described* the action of *-wI'* using the
singular nouns *one* and *thing* does not mean he intended this syntactic
marker to be incompatible with inherently plural verbs. By the same token,
one could take his exact words as evidence that a verb+*-wI'* cannot refer
to mass noun, since these are never referred to as *one* or *thing*. I do
not expect he'd object to the language of TKD 3.2.2 being understood as *that
which does/**is*.
* I think "describe" is a more accurate term than "define" for how Okrand
presents the Klingon language, with all that that implies.
~mIp'av
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
--000000000000339b7a058274a8c4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:03 PM SuStel &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrot=
e:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padd=
ing-left:1ex">
=20
=20
=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
<div class=3D"gmail-m_2096560742530544447moz-cite-prefix">On 2/21/2019 =
1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">It
could be translated as "the many," just as <b>qanwI'</b=
> can be
translated "the old."</blockquote>
<p>Actually, I want to counter this. <b>qanwI'</b> can be
translated <i>the old</i> only in the sense that plural suffixes
are optional in Klingon, and <b>qanwI'pu'</b> means <i>the ol=
d.</i>
Assuming no dropped plural suffix, <b>qanwI'</b> only means <i>ol=
d
one.</i></p></div></blockquote><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>Even=
=C2=A0<b>qanwI'</b>=C2=A0singular could be translated as=C2=A0<i>the ol=
d</i>, if the speaker is generalizing. Do' DIvI' Hol wa' qech n=
elbe' tlhIngan ngIq mu'. nel net jalchugh, Dalqu'choH tlhIngan =
Hol.</div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0=
px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgco=
lor=3D"#FFFFFF">
<p>TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of <b>-wI',</b> and it's
always explained as <i>thing which does</i> or <i>one who does,</i>
and even once as <i>thing which is</i> (we have since gotten
canon for <i>one who is</i>). Nowhere is it explained as <i>things
which do</i><i>, </i><i>those who do, things which are</i> or <i>th=
ose
who are.</i></p>
<p>I agree that it's a fine point, but I don't think it's r=
igid so
much as careful not to stray beyond what we know <b>-wI'</b>
does.</p>
<p>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>law=
9;wI'pu'</b>
means <i>the many,</i>" and there'd be no problem. You just =
can't
get there with what we have now without making an assumption.</p></di=
v></blockquote><div>I'm with you on disliking <b>law'wI'pu'=
</b>, but only because <b>law'</b>=C2=A0is inherently plural when appli=
ed to count nouns. It grates on my ear for the same reason=C2=A0<b>*ngopmey=
</b> would.</div><div><br></div><div>Simply because Okrand has described* t=
he action of <b>-wI'</b> using the singular nouns <i>one</i> and <i>thi=
ng</i> does not mean he intended this syntactic marker to be incompatible w=
ith inherently plural verbs. By the same token, one could take his exact wo=
rds as evidence that a verb+<b>-wI'</b> cannot refer to mass noun, sinc=
e these are never referred to as <i>one</i> or <i>thing</i>. I do not expec=
t he'd object to the language of TKD 3.2.2 being understood as=C2=A0<i>=
that which does/</i><i>is</i>.</div><div><br></div><div>* I think "des=
cribe" is a more accurate term than "define" for how Okrand =
presents the Klingon language, with all that that implies.</div><div>=C2=A0=
</div><div>~mIp'av</div></div></div><div id=3D"DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-=
4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style=3D"border-top:1px solid #d3d4de">
<tr>
<td style=3D"width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href=3D"http://www.avg=
.com/email-signature?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dlink&utm_campa=
ign=3Dsig-email&utm_content=3Dwebmail" target=3D"_blank"><img src=3D"ht=
tps://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png" al=
t=3D"" width=3D"46" height=3D"29" style=3D"width: 46px; height: 29px;"></a>=
</td>
<td style=3D"width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;fo=
nt-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virus-free. <a href=
=3D"http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3D=
link&utm_campaign=3Dsig-email&utm_content=3Dwebmail" target=3D"_bla=
nk" style=3D"color:#4453ea">www.avg.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href=3D"#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width=3D"1" heigh=
t=3D"1"></a></div>
--000000000000339b7a058274a8c4--
--===============2655945273556364475==
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
--===============2655945273556364475==--
