[112120] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does rIntaH require a sentient being ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Mar 8 17:02:45 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 17:02:42 -0500
In-Reply-To: <6440C682-FBD1-4940-BC94-164B3CB2623B@mac.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============9010265817586534858==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------39A7E6FFB948D046833E8050"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------39A7E6FFB948D046833E8050
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 3/8/2019 4:50 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> That strikes me as peculiar. Since {vIje’} has the prefix assigning
> the subject to that verb, I would expect that for emphasis, if you
> wanted to add {jIH} it should go after {vIje’}, as in {vIje’ jIH rIntaH}.
>
> Doing it as {vIje’ rIntaH jIH} only makes sense if, given that written
> Klingon as we know it is phonetic spelling of spoken Klingon, somehow
> {rIntaH} has become a Type 10 suffix,
Or it's just an exceptional rule that says the special word *rIntaH*
comes after the verb regardless of any subjects or objects. Similar to
how the adverbial *neH* comes after a verb or noun as needed instead of
coming at the front of a sentence. It's just exceptional. We don't need
to make up hypothetical type 10 suffixes.
> so it always follows the verb and its other suffixes, and any subject
> would follow it. Otherwise, I see no justification for {rIntaH jIH},
> since as a sentence, it would have to be {jIrIntaH jIH}.
No, the *jIH* would be the subject of *vIje',* with the word *rIntaH*
simply being inserted after the verb.
We have no problem with *qa'vIn De' vIje' neH jIH*/I merely buy the
Genesis data./ Why would we have a problem with *qa'vIn De' vIje' rIntaH
jIH*/I have bought the Genesis data/?
On the other hand, this is being described in TKD as a special kind of
sentence-as-object construction, so it might make sense that when Okrand
said /verb/ he actually meant /sentence,/ since all his examples have no
explicit subject.
Again, without data, we can't decide one way or the other.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------39A7E6FFB948D046833E8050
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 3/8/2019 4:50 PM, Will Martin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6440C682-FBD1-4940-BC94-164B3CB2623B@mac.com">
<div class="">That strikes me as peculiar. Since {vIje’} has the
prefix assigning the subject to that verb, I would expect that
for emphasis, if you wanted to add {jIH} it should go after
{vIje’}, as in {vIje’ jIH rIntaH}.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Doing it as {vIje’ rIntaH jIH} only makes sense if,
given that written Klingon as we know it is phonetic spelling of
spoken Klingon, somehow {rIntaH} has become a Type 10 suffix,</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Or it's just an exceptional rule that says the special word <b>rIntaH</b>
comes after the verb regardless of any subjects or objects.
Similar to how the adverbial <b>neH</b> comes after a verb or
noun as needed instead of coming at the front of a sentence. It's
just exceptional. We don't need to make up hypothetical type 10
suffixes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6440C682-FBD1-4940-BC94-164B3CB2623B@mac.com">
<div class=""> so it always follows the verb and its other
suffixes, and any subject would follow it. Otherwise, I see no
justification for {rIntaH jIH}, since as a sentence, it would
have to be {jIrIntaH jIH}. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, the <b>jIH</b> would be the subject of <b>vIje',</b> with
the word <b>rIntaH</b> simply being inserted after the verb.</p>
<p>We have no problem with <b>qa'vIn De' vIje' neH jIH</b><i> I
merely buy the Genesis data.</i> Why would we have a problem
with <b>qa'vIn De' vIje' rIntaH jIH</b><i> I have bought the
Genesis data</i>?</p>
<p>On the other hand, this is being described in TKD as a special
kind of sentence-as-object construction, so it might make sense
that when Okrand said <i>verb</i> he actually meant <i>sentence,</i>
since all his examples have no explicit subject.<br>
</p>
<p>Again, without data, we can't decide one way or the other.<br>
</p>
<p><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>
--------------39A7E6FFB948D046833E8050--
--===============9010265817586534858==
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
--===============9010265817586534858==--
