[90871] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Monopoly: another card
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID jonpIn)
Fri Nov 25 03:30:54 2011
In-Reply-To: <001801cc7fe8$19d76af0$4d8640d0$@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:30:38 +0100
From: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: KLI <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============5726082705037090610==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300e568bbc077404b28af7f8
--20cf300e568bbc077404b28af7f8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
bI'reng:
> > Some speculation: while Okrand defines {net} as being used when the
> > subject of the verb is "one, someone", the examples given in TKD seem to
> > mean "people in general" (eg, qama'pu' DIHoH net Sov). Maybe he avoided
> > {net} because "people in general" did not choose the player to join the
> yan
> > 'ISletlh, but some specific unnamed person. In that case, maybe {'e'
> wIvlu'} is
> > the way to go. Some more examples of {'e'} and {net} from canon might
> > clarify the issue.
>
SuStel:
> He's done it before:
>
> yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'
> survival must be earned
>
> yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'
> victory myst be earned
>
> (TKW 125)
>
> Both of these are talking about people in general, and not a specific,
> unnamed person. I see no reason to believe that {'e'} and {net} distinguish
> between these. If talking about a specific, unnamed person, I would expect
> to see {vay'}.
It's possible that MO simply made a mistake. Nevertheless, it's not out of
the question that {'e' X-lu'} and {net X} are used differently. Here is
some more speculation.
Perhaps {net} is used in those instances where, were the sentence to be
expressed in the passive voice (in English), the object of {net} would
naturally be the subject of the passive voice sentence. For instance:
{T net Sov} "It is known that T" => "T is known"
{T net legh} "It is seen that T" => "T is seen"
In the above, "it" (in "it is known" or "it is seen") refers to the
sentence T (e.g., T = {qama'pu' DIHoH}). But note that in the translation
of the following sentence into passive voice, "it" is not the natural
subject:
{Damuv 'e' wIvlu'} "someone chooses that you join it" => "*you* are
chosen to join it"
The subject of "to be chosen" is not the *sentence* "you join it", but the *
pronoun* "you". Or, if you will, you can say that in the sentence {X 'e'
Y-lu'}, the verb Y shares the subject with the verb of the sentence X.
Contrast this with:
{Damuv net wIv} "it is chosen that [you join it]" => "[you join it] is
chosen"
The topic or subject here is no longer "you", but the sentence "you join
it". Similarly, consider the sentence:
{yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'} "someone needs to earn that someone [the same
person] continues to live} => "*survival* must be earned", "*a person's
survival* must be earned *by that same person*"
In the above, the subject of {baj} is the *same* (indefinite) person as the
subject of {yIn}. A person must earn *that person*'s own survival. Again,
contrast this with:
{yInlu'taH net bajnIS} "it must be earned that [someone continues to
live]" => "[someone continues to live] must be earned"
It is no longer clear that {baj} has the same subject as {yIn}. Perhaps
someone (say, Kirk's son David Marcus) is being held hostage, and *someone
else* (Kirk) must earn the former's (David's) survival.
Note that in the other {'e' bajnISlu'} example, the preceding sentence's
verb also has {-lu'}:
{yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'} "someone needs to earn that someone [the
same person] achieves victory" => "*victory* must be earned", "*the
achievement of a victory* must be earned *by the person who achieves it*"
With {net}, the meaning is not the same:
{yay chavlu' net bajnIS} "it must be earned that [someone achieves
victory]" => "[someone achieves victory] must be earned (not necessarily by
the same person?)"
A sentence of the form {X-lu' 'e' Y-lu'} means that the verb Y has the same
indefinite subject as the verb X, whereas no such relationship exists
between the subjects of X and Y in {X-lu' net Y}.
More generally, a sentence of the form {X 'e' Y-lu'} means that the subject
of the sentence X is the object of the sentence Y. Thus, {Damuv 'e'
wIvlu'} is like {Damuv; *SoH* DawIvlu'}, whereas {Damuv net wIv} is like
{Damuv; *'oH* wIvlu'}.
The above (highly speculative) theory fits the examples given in this
thread, at least. Are there any canon examples that contradict it?
--
De'vID
--20cf300e568bbc077404b28af7f8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div><br></div>bI'reng:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex;"><div class=3D"im">> Some speculation: while Okrand define=
s {net} as being used when the<br>
> subject of the verb is "one, someone", the examples given in=
TKD seem to<br>
> mean "people in general" (eg, qama'pu' DIHoH net Sov=
). Maybe he avoided<br>
> {net} because "people in general" did not choose the player =
to join the<br>
yan<br>
> 'ISletlh, but some specific unnamed person. In that case, maybe {&=
#39;e'<br>
wIvlu'} is<br>
> the way to go. Some more examples of {'e'} and {net} from cano=
n might<br>
> clarify the issue.<br>
</div></blockquote><div>=A0</div><div>SuStel:</div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex;">He's done it before:<br>
<br>
yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'<br>
survival must be earned<br>
<br>
yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'<br>
victory myst be earned<br>
<br>
(TKW 125)<br>
<br>
Both of these are talking about people in general, and not a specific,<br>
unnamed person. I see no reason to believe that {'e'} and {net} dis=
tinguish<br>
between these. If talking about a specific, unnamed person, I would expect<=
br>
to see {vay'}.</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>It's possible =
that MO simply made a mistake. =A0Nevertheless, it's not out of the que=
stion that {'e' X-lu'} and {net X} are used differently. =A0Her=
e is some more speculation.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Perhaps {net} is used in those instances where, were th=
e sentence to be expressed in the passive voice (in English), the object of=
{net} would naturally be the subject of the passive voice sentence. =A0For=
instance:</div>
<div><br></div><div>=A0 =A0 {T net Sov} "It is known that T" =3D&=
gt; "T is known"</div><div>=A0 =A0 {T net legh} "It is seen =
that T" =3D> "T is seen"</div><div><br></div><div>In the =
above, "it" (in "it is known" or "it is seen"=
) refers to the sentence T (e.g., T =3D {qama'pu' DIHoH}). =A0But n=
ote that in the translation of the following sentence into passive voice, &=
quot;it" is not the natural subject:</div>
<div><br></div><div>=A0 =A0 {Damuv 'e' wIvlu'} "someone ch=
ooses that you join it" =3D> "<i>you</i>=A0are chosen to join =
it"</div><div><br></div><div><div>The subject of "to be chosen&qu=
ot; is not the <i>sentence</i> "you join it", but the <i>pronoun<=
/i> "you". =A0Or, if you will, you can say that in the sentence {=
X 'e' Y-lu'}, the verb Y shares the subject with the verb of th=
e sentence X. =A0Contrast this with:</div>
</div><div><br></div><div><div>=A0 =A0 {Damuv net wIv} "it is chosen t=
hat [you join it]" =3D> "[you join it] is chosen"</div></=
div><div><br></div><div>The topic or subject here is no longer "you&qu=
ot;, but the sentence "you join it". =A0Similarly, consider the s=
entence:</div>
<div><br></div><div>=A0 =A0 {yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'} "=
;someone needs to earn that someone [the same person] continues to live} =
=3D> "<i>survival</i>=A0must be earned", "<i>a person'=
;s survival</i>=A0must be earned <i>by that same person</i>"</div>
<div><br></div><div>In the above, the subject of {baj} is the <i>same</i>=
=A0(indefinite) person as the subject of {yIn}. =A0A person must earn <i>th=
at person</i>'s own survival. =A0Again, contrast this with:</div><div><=
br></div>
<div>=A0 =A0 {yInlu'taH net bajnIS} "it must be earned that [someo=
ne continues to live]" =3D> "[someone continues to live] must =
be earned"</div><div><br></div><div>It is no longer clear that {baj} h=
as the same subject as {yIn}. =A0Perhaps someone (say, Kirk's son David=
Marcus) is being held hostage, and <i>someone else</i>=A0(Kirk) must earn =
the former's (David's) survival.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Note that in the other {'e' bajnISlu'} exam=
ple, the preceding sentence's verb also has {-lu'}:</div><div><br><=
/div><div>=A0 =A0 {yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'} "someone=
needs to earn that someone [the same person] achieves victory" =3D>=
; "<i>victory</i>=A0must be earned", "<i>the achievement of =
a victory</i>=A0must be earned=A0<i>by the person who achieves it</i>"=
</div>
<div><br></div><div>With {net}, the meaning is not the same:</div><div><br>=
</div><div>=A0 =A0 {yay chavlu' net bajnIS} "it must be earned tha=
t [someone achieves victory]" =3D> "[someone achieves victory]=
must be earned (not necessarily by the same person?)"</div>
<div><br></div><div>A sentence of the form {X-lu' 'e' Y-lu'=
} means that the verb Y has the same indefinite subject as the verb X, wher=
eas no such relationship exists between the subjects of X and Y in {X-lu=
9; net Y}. =A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>More generally, a sentence of the form {X 'e' Y=
-lu'} means that the subject of the sentence X is the object of the sen=
tence Y. =A0Thus, {Damuv 'e' wIvlu'} is like {Damuv; <i>SoH</i>=
DawIvlu'}, whereas {Damuv net wIv} is like {Damuv; <i>'oH</i> wIvl=
u'}.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The above (highly speculative) theory fits the examples=
given in this thread, at least. =A0Are there any canon examples that contr=
adict it?</div><div><br></div>-- <br>De'vID<br>
--20cf300e568bbc077404b28af7f8--
--===============5726082705037090610==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============5726082705037090610==--
