[83902] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Wed Jan 9 15:58:56 2008
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:57:33 -0600
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
In-Reply-To: <73833.71242.qm@web82615.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ter'eS wrote:
>{jIleng. cha' SaD qelI'qam 'aD HewIj.}
>
>No reason why you have to try to cram all the information into a single
>sentence.
Agreed, though {'ab} might be a better choice:
st.k (10/22/97): There are two words used for length: {'aD} and
{'ab}. Both of these can be translated as "have a length of", but they are
used somewhat differently. {'aD} is used in contrast with {juch} "have a
width of" in measuring, say, a table top. {'ab}, on the other hand, is
used for (potentially) longish, skinnyish things (for example, spears) and
also for heights.
Can a course/route be considered "(potentially) longish, skinnyish" thing?
BTW It's interesting no one has considered using {Hop} "be remote/, be far"
or {Sum} "be near/nearby". I'm not sure how you could use these with
numbers, though.
For those interested:
st.k (9/97): As for how to use {Sum} "be near, nearby"--that will require
some more time with Maltz. Do' Sum matlh. I would think, however, that it
would work the same way as {Hop} "be far."
Interview in HolQeD 7.4 (Dec. 1998):
WM: Two other verbs that are interesting in terms of whether you would
use {vI-} or {jI-} are {Sum} and {Hop}. Like {raS vISum} or {raS vIHop}.
MO: Okay. This opens up a whole new issue. You see, there's this thing
called "deixis." This is the idea that an utterance is made at a
specific time and place, and certain words or grammatical elements
are interpreted correctly only by reference to that time and place.
So the same word may refer to a different real-world thing
depending on who's speaking, where, when, and so on. Like in the
statement "I am here," where is "here?" It has to do with where you
are when you make the statement. And who is "I?" "I" is Marc if I
say it; it's Will if you do.
WM: And when somebody writes that on a blackboard and then walks
away. It was true when it was written, but later...
MO: Yes. It's like the sign in a store window that says "Back in one
hour." If there's no indication of when the sign was put up, how do
you know how long to wait? It's the same in regular conversation.
You don't speak in a vacuum. There are elements in the speech
situation to let us interpret utterances correctly. Usually, anyway.
MO: Using the verbs {Sum} and {Hop} involves this concept.
WM: So I could not say {raSvam vISum} to say, "I am near the table."
MO: No. You'd just say {Sum raS}. The verb {Sum} implies that the speaker
is the one the subject is near at the time of speaking.
Hop jabwI'.
The waiter is far from me right now.
WM: Well, that resolves the conflict otherwise created if they could take
objects. It keeps them stative, so you can say, {HIvje' Sum yItlhap}.
MO: Yes.
WM: Otherwise, they'd be the only verbs we'd sometimes use as
adjectives and other times use transitively.
MO: Take an object. Yes.
WM: So, could that deictic anchor be shifted by using an indirect object?
Like if I wanted to say, "You are near the table," could I say {SoHvaD
Sum raS}?
MO: No. You'd use {-Daq}: {SoHDaq Sum raS}. This throws the orientation
away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener
(marked, stated: "at you, where you are"). But you don't always
need to state this overtly. Context is critical. For example:
qagh largh SuvwI' ghung. Sum qagh 'e' Sov.
The hungry warrior smells the gagh.
He/she knows the gagh is nearby.
The only interpretation of this (absent other information) is that
the warrior knows the gagh is near the warrior, not the warrior knows
the gagh is near the speaker of the sentences. If context isn't
clear, you can clarify:
Question: Sum'a' raS?
Is the table near (me)? (Am I near the table?)
Answer: HIja'. Sum raS.
Yes. The table is near (you).
Answer: ghobe'. jIHDaq Sum raS.
No. The table is near me.
WM: And could I say {maSumchuq}?
MO: No. You'd just say {bISum} or {SuSum}. If you haven't, in the course
of the conversation, set things up otherwise, it's assumed that the
event being talked about is taking place where the speaker is. In
fact, {jISum} alone probably would make no everyday sense to a Klingon.
"I am near me." But it does have an idiomatic philosophical sense,
something like "I'm in touch with my inner self" (but in a Klingon
sort of way, of course).
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
