[83897] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Wed Jan 9 12:38:47 2008
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:37:12 -0600
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
In-Reply-To: <ABBF82EE-0EFF-4B21-B33B-7EFA112D8C5D@embarqmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Doq:
> >> It seems much safer to use {-'e'} to mark the distance here, since it
> >> is the most significant noun there for the meaning of the sentence,
> >> and it's not the subject or direct object. That's pretty much what
> >> {-'e'} usually marks.
SuStel:
> > No, {-'e'} doesn't work. The distance you traveled isn't the topic of
> > the sentence. You're really just trying to squeeze extra meanings into
> > the topicalizer, sort of as a catch-all space for meanings Klingon
> > doesn't have.
> >
> > Oh sure, you COULD decide to make the distance into the topic of your
> > sentence so you can put {-'e'} on it, but then you're changing your
> > meaning to fit the grammar.
Doq:
>I respect your opinion, but I don't understand why I fail to convey
>the meaning of "I traveled 1,000 miles," if in English, I simply
>shouted, "A THOUSAND MILES!" and then paused and said, "I traveled."
>
>For me, that's what the topicalizer does. It's like I'm holding a sign
>over my head that says, "1,000 miles" and I say, "I traveled".
>Whatever I say while I hold that sign up is said in the context of
>what is on the sign. It's not the subject. It's not the object. It's
>the context. It's the topic.
IF you want to use {-'e'}, then which noun would be the topic of "I
traveled a thousand miles to Chicago" - miles or Chicago? They're not in
apposition, as in "I traveled to Chicago, the Windy City."
To review, we have three examples of stated distance IIRC:
jabbI'ID pup: Qapchu'meH 'aqroS chuq: cha' vI' chorgh loghqammey
High Resolution - Maximum Effective Range - 3.5 Light Years. BOP
jabbI'ID pupHa': Qapchu'meH chuq: chorgh vI' chorgh loghqammey
Medium to Low Resolution - Effective Range - 11 Light Years. BOP
This is just a series of noun phrases in both languages labelling something
on the BOP poster. Not helpful.
chorghSaD qelI'qam HIvchuq'e' vInoH
Estimating attack range in 8,000 kellicams. ST5
Note that he isn't saying the target is 8,000 kellicams distant. He's
saying that they are still out of range and will have to travel another
8,000 more kellicams before they reach firing range. Still, this is the
most useful example - *IF* we knew the grammar of this transcribed line of
dialogue. Are we even sure this is the topic suffix {-'e'} or is it the
previous topic pronoun {'e'}?
? chorghSaD qelI'qam. HIvchuq'e' vInoH.
8,000 kellicams. I estimate the attack range.
? chorghSaD qelI'qam HIvchuq 'e' vInoH.
I estimate an 8,000 kellicam attack range. [Clipped?]
? chorghSaD qelI'qam HIvchuq. 'e' vInoH.
8,000 kellicam attack range. I estimate it.
What is the relation of {chorghSaD qelI'qam} to {HIvchuq}? It would be
nice to see Okrand's notes and look at his punctuation, if any. Is there
even much formal syntax or is this just a bit of terse (possibly Clipped)
battle speech? E.g.
? <chorghSaD qelI'qam HIvchuq>'e' vInoH.
I estimate a 8,000-kellicam-attack-range.
? chorghSaD qelI'qam... HIvchuq'e' vInoH.
8,000 kellicams... I'm estimating the attack range. [i.e. it's not exact]
? chorghSaD qelI'qam ['oH] HIvchuq'e' vInoH.
I estimate the attack range to be 8,000 kellicams. [Clipped?]
? chorghSaD qelI'qam ['oH] HIvchuq'e'. vInoH.
The attack range is 8,000 kellicams. I estimate (it).
etc. etc.
And if this is abbreviated battle speech, I wouldn't be surprised to
discover that there's a yet unattested measurement verb for stating formal
distances similar to {juch} "have a width of", {Saw'} "have a depth of",
{'ab}/{'aD} "have a length of", etc.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
