[112276] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] when -laH cripples the -lu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Tue Mar 19 09:54:03 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:53:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: <c9fd23bf-76ab-1a1c-e0cf-19033e3b1360@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============9019451334864032731==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-2A55B304-4B28-4154-971C-D18289B0A2FD
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--Apple-Mail-2A55B304-4B28-4154-971C-D18289B0A2FD
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Great example.
Looking more closely at it, I could see it interpreted two different ways, a=
nd wonder which is intended.
The most common interpretation is that the one who seeks to win a war should=
not do so if doing so destroys his own empire. The other interpretation is t=
hat the destruction of any empire is not justified by winning a war.=20
Similarly, the second half either means that one should end a war to save on=
e=E2=80=99s own empire or that one should stop any war before it destroys an=
y empire. Regardless of whose team you are on, don=E2=80=99t cook your golde=
n goose. Don=E2=80=99t destroy the organization that makes glorious war poss=
ible. A surviving empire can always build itself back up and offer another w=
ar later, right? Then you get to defeat them AGAIN, so long as you don=E2=80=
=99t destroy them.=20
Human common sense suggests the first interpretation should win because we s=
eek to dominate all enemies and end all wars, but considering how Klingons v=
alue a strong enemy, it could well be that the proverb is stressing that all=
empires must survive, perhaps so that they may continue to wage war. A Klin=
gon would never want to destroy all enemies.=20
If the second interpretation holds, that it is a general law that even your e=
nemy=E2=80=99s empire must be saved, then your example shows {-lu=E2=80=99} a=
s completely unspecified, and not merely unstated.=20
In other words, it is not that there are some guys and I=E2=80=99m not going=
to tell you who they are, but those guys X and those same guys Y. I=E2=80=99=
m instead saying that EVERYBODY X and EVERYBODY Y. I=E2=80=99m talking about=
the generic =E2=80=9Cone=E2=80=9D that proverbs generally refer to.=20
If that=E2=80=99s the case, then going back to the original question, I=E2=80=
=99d be as specific as the topic implies and talk about students instead of t=
alking about a generic =E2=80=9Cone=E2=80=9D when I really only intend to be=
talking about students. You get the added bonus of losing any conflict over=
speaking of ability.=20
I think you should use {ghojwI=E2=80=99} a couple times and then continue wi=
th the invisible =E2=80=9Che/she=E2=80=9D without using {-lu=E2=80=99} at al=
l. You don=E2=80=99t need it as much as you seem to think you do. I honestly=
think it=E2=80=99s most common use is for the global, generic =E2=80=9Cone=E2=
=80=9D and not so much for the limited context, unstated subject. Any normal=
pronoun can do what you are trying to do with the indefinite subject.=20
It=E2=80=99s just an opinion. I=E2=80=99m not an authority. It stands on its=
own, or it falls in the marketplace of discussion.=20
charghwI=E2=80=99
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 18, 2019, at 3:47 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
>> On 3/18/2019 3:36 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> charghwI:
>> > There might be a better approach to the entire effort.
>>=20
>> I wish there was, but what would that be ?
>>=20
>> Suppose you wanted to write, a long passage with regards to the process o=
f learning a foreign language. Starting from how often one should study, how=
one should study, the things one should avoid, etc..
>>=20
>> How would you approach it, without using the -lu' ?
>>=20
>> The only choices I can think of, are saying {vay'} and/or {ghojwI'}, and u=
sing them interchangeably. But I would avoid the - lu', if not for any other=
reason, at least in order to avoid hitting the simultaneous -laH/lu' obstac=
le.
>>=20
>> Would you approach this differently ?
> I'd probably use imperatives. If it's a book of instruction, instead of sa=
ying naDev wot lo'nISlu' one needs to use a verb here, just say naDev wot yI=
lo' use a verb here!
>=20
> If, on the other hand, you're writing a scholarly paper on how people go a=
bout learning languages, then I'd pepper my manuscript with ghojwI' student,=
jatlhwI' speaker, or whoever it is who is learning. naDev wot lo' jatlhwI' t=
he speaker uses a verb here. Then your -laH problem doesn't even exist.
>=20
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--Apple-Mail-2A55B304-4B28-4154-971C-D18289B0A2FD
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto">Great example.<div><br></div><div>Looking m=
ore closely at it, I could see it interpreted two different ways, and wonder=
which is intended.</div><div><br></div><div>The most common interpretation i=
s that the one who seeks to win a war should not do so if doing so destroys h=
is own empire. The other interpretation is that the destruction of any empir=
e is not justified by winning a war. </div><div><br></div><div>Similarl=
y, the second half either means that one should end a war to save one=E2=80=99=
s own empire or that one should stop any war before it destroys any empire. R=
egardless of whose team you are on, don=E2=80=99t cook your golden goose. Do=
n=E2=80=99t destroy the organization that makes glorious war possible. A sur=
viving empire can always build itself back up and offer another war later, r=
ight? Then you get to defeat them AGAIN, so long as you don=E2=80=99t destro=
y them. </div><div><br></div><div>Human common sense suggests the first=
interpretation should win because we seek to dominate all enemies and end a=
ll wars, but considering how Klingons value a strong enemy, it could well be=
that the proverb is stressing that all empires must survive, perhaps so tha=
t they may continue to wage war. A Klingon would never want to destroy all e=
nemies. </div><div><br></div><div>If the second interpretation holds, t=
hat it is a general law that even your enemy=E2=80=99s empire must be saved,=
then your example shows {-lu=E2=80=99} as completely unspecified, and not m=
erely unstated. </div><div><br></div><div>In other words, it is not tha=
t there are some guys and I=E2=80=99m not going to tell you who they are, bu=
t those guys X and those same guys Y. I=E2=80=99m instead saying that EVERYB=
ODY X and EVERYBODY Y. I=E2=80=99m talking about the generic =E2=80=9Cone=E2=
=80=9D that proverbs generally refer to. </div><div><br></div><div>If t=
hat=E2=80=99s the case, then going back to the original question, I=E2=80=99=
d be as specific as the topic implies and talk about students instead of tal=
king about a generic =E2=80=9Cone=E2=80=9D when I really only intend to be t=
alking about students. You get the added bonus of losing any conflict over s=
peaking of ability. </div><div><br></div><div>I think you should use {g=
hojwI=E2=80=99} a couple times and then continue with the invisible =E2=80=9C=
he/she=E2=80=9D without using {-lu=E2=80=99} at all. You don=E2=80=99t need i=
t as much as you seem to think you do. I honestly think it=E2=80=99s most co=
mmon use is for the global, generic =E2=80=9Cone=E2=80=9D and not so much fo=
r the limited context, unstated subject. Any normal pronoun can do what you a=
re trying to do with the indefinite subject. </div><div><br></div><div>=
It=E2=80=99s just an opinion. I=E2=80=99m not an authority. It stands on its=
own, or it falls in the marketplace of discussion. </div><div><br></di=
v><div>charghwI=E2=80=99<br><div id=3D"AppleMailSignature" dir=3D"ltr">Sent f=
rom my iPad</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br>On Mar 18, 2019, at 3:47 PM, SuStel &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote=
:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr">
=20
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF-8"=
>
=20
=20
<div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 3/18/2019 3:36 PM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:CAP7F2c+7wFguLxmvrQcNveC6Ph4SvNc77=
-kwmKykhFNpyD01kQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8=
px">charghwI:</span></div>
<span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">> There
might be a better approach to the entire effort.</span>
<div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8=
px"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px">I wish there was, but what would
that be ?</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px">Suppose you wanted to write, a long
passage with regards to the process of learning a foreign
language. Starting from how often one should study, how one
should study, the things one should avoid, etc..</span></font></=
div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px">How would you approach it, without
using the -lu' ?</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px">The only choices I can think of,
are saying {vay'} and/or {ghojwI'}, and using them
interchangeably. But I would avoid the - lu', if not for any
other reason, at least in order to avoid hitting the
simultaneous -laH/lu' obstacle.</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px">Would you approach this differently
?</span></font></div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'd probably use imperatives. If it's a book of instruction,
instead of saying <b>naDev wot lo'nISlu'</b><i> one needs to use
a verb here,</i> just say <b>naDev wot yIlo'</b><i> use a verb
here!</i></p>
<p>If, on the other hand, you're writing a scholarly paper on how
people go about learning languages, then I'd pepper my manuscript
with <b>ghojwI'</b><i> student</i>, <b>jatlhwI'</b><i> speaker</i>,
or whoever it is who is learning. <b>naDev wot lo' jatlhwI'</b><i>
the speaker uses a verb here.</i> Then your <b>-laH</b> problem
doesn't even exist.<br>
</p>
<pre class=3D"moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20
SuStel
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"http://trimboli.name">http://trim=
boli.name</a></pre>
=20
</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span>________=
_______________________________________</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol mailing=
list</span><br><span><a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan=
-Hol@lists.kli.org</a></span><br><span><a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listi=
nfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol=
-kli.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-2A55B304-4B28-4154-971C-D18289B0A2FD--
--===============9019451334864032731==
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
--===============9019451334864032731==--
