[91019] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID jonpIn)
Tue Nov 29 02:42:53 2011
In-Reply-To: <4ED1B867.2050006@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:42:37 +0100
From: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============8445607361103406830==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305b0aae64895c04b2dac36f
--20cf305b0aae64895c04b2dac36f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
SuStel:
> The semantic roles of subjects and objects in Klingon seem to change all
> the time. I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you {mev}. Sometimes
> we're given explicit instructions on how to use a verb, but most of the
> time we rely on the semantics of the English translation. Suppose Klingon
> semantics aren't so strict? Suppose you can use any semantic role you like
> as subject or object, so long as context makes it clear what you mean?
> {jIDIng} "I spin," {gho vIDIng} "I spin the circle," {gho vIDIngmoH} "I
> spin the circle." (The difference between the latter two is an explicit
> indication ({-moH}) that the subject is the agent, as opposed to, say, an
> instrument or a force.
>
Where has {mev} been used in the sense of {mevmoH}?
We did ask MO about {DIng} (whether it's transitive and how it differs from
{jIr}/{jIrmoH}) at the qepHom'a' but didnt' get an answer. (We did get
that {ghur} and {nup} are intransitive though.)
I can't think of any examples where the semantic roles of subjects and
objects have changed. We recently learned that {vergh} is transitive
(someone docks something), when some people have assumed it was
intransitive (the ship docks). But I don't think the canon contradicts
previous canon, just people's assumptions.
--
De'vID
--20cf305b0aae64895c04b2dac36f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">SuStel:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">T=
he semantic roles of subjects and objects in Klingon seem to change all the=
time. I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you {mev}. Sometimes we'=
;re given explicit instructions on how to use a verb, but most of the time =
we rely on the semantics of the English translation. Suppose Klingon semant=
ics aren't so strict? Suppose you can use any semantic role you like as=
subject or object, so long as context makes it clear what you mean? {jIDIn=
g} "I spin," {gho vIDIng} "I spin the circle," {gho vID=
IngmoH} "I spin the circle." (The difference between the latter t=
wo is an explicit indication ({-moH}) that the subject is the agent, as opp=
osed to, say, an instrument or a force.<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br></div>Where has {mev} been used in the sense of=
{mevmoH}? =A0<div><br></div><div>We did ask MO about {DIng} (whether it=
9;s transitive and how it differs from {jIr}/{jIrmoH}) at the qepHom'a&=
#39; but didnt' get an answer. =A0(We did get that {ghur} and {nup} are=
intransitive though.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>I can't think of any examples where the semantic ro=
les of subjects and objects have changed. =A0We recently learned that {verg=
h} is transitive (someone docks something), when some people have assumed i=
t was intransitive (the ship docks). =A0But I don't think the canon con=
tradicts previous canon, just people's assumptions.<br clear=3D"all">
<div><br></div>-- <br>De'vID<br>
</div>
--20cf305b0aae64895c04b2dac36f--
--===============8445607361103406830==
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
--===============8445607361103406830==--
