[112124] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does rIntaH require a sentient being ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Sat Mar 9 01:50:27 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <6440C682-FBD1-4940-BC94-164B3CB2623B@mac.com>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 07:50:13 +0100
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============6790172198759668865==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f30f3a0583a3c0ae"
--000000000000f30f3a0583a3c0ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 22:51, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
> Doing it as {vIje=E2=80=99 rIntaH jIH} only makes sense if, given that wr=
itten
> Klingon as we know it is phonetic spelling of spoken Klingon, somehow
> {rIntaH} has become a Type 10 suffix, so it always follows the verb and i=
ts
> 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}.
>
If it's acting like a suffix, then it's surely acting like a type 7,
namely, the {-ta'} that it's replacing. Since we have no examples of a type
8 ({-neS}) or type 9 following {rIntaH}, and the way we write Klingon is a
phonetic transcription of how it's spoken, {vIje' rIntaH jIH} might as well
be {vIje'rIntaH jIH} where {-rIntaH} is a two-syllable type 7 suffix.
Indeed, since {ta'} "accomplish" and {taH} "continue" are verbs, one might
speculate that they were verbs which became suffixes. Perhaps {rIntaH} is
undergoing a similar evolution, but has resisted full assimilation as a
suffix because it's two syllables.
But until we have a canon (counter)example either way, we can't tell.
--=20
De'vID
--000000000000f30f3a0583a3c0ae
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 22:51, Will Mar=
tin <<a href=3D"mailto:willmartin2@mac.com">willmartin2@mac.com</a>> =
wrote:<br></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 styl=
e=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div>Doing it as {vIje=E2=80=99 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, =
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}.=C2=A0</div></div></blockquote=
></div><div><br></div><div>If it's acting like a suffix, then it's =
surely acting like a type 7, namely, the {-ta'} that it's replacing=
. Since we have no examples of a type 8 ({-neS}) or type 9 following {rInta=
H}, and the way we write Klingon is a phonetic transcription of how it'=
s spoken, {vIje' rIntaH jIH} might as well be {vIje'rIntaH jIH} whe=
re {-rIntaH} is a two-syllable type 7 suffix. Indeed, since {ta'} "=
;accomplish" and {taH} "continue" are verbs, one might specu=
late that they were verbs which became suffixes. Perhaps {rIntaH} is underg=
oing a similar evolution, but has resisted full assimilation as a suffix be=
cause it's two syllables.</div><div><br></div><div>But until we have a =
canon (counter)example either way, we can't tell.</div><div><br></div>-=
- <br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature">De'vID</div></div>
--000000000000f30f3a0583a3c0ae--
--===============6790172198759668865==
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
--===============6790172198759668865==--
