[93711] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Type 7
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Fri Jun 15 06:22:36 2012
In-Reply-To: <EAC2C639-D4FB-4EC8-8321-296DE3FCDCDD@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:22:18 +0200
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============3258909579188890313==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30051592e65fcd04c2803042
--20cf30051592e65fcd04c2803042
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> As usual, canon can raise as many questions as it answers. Like with the
common:
>
> page 70: nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'? "Where is the bathroom?"
>
> Compare that to:
>
> page 27: pa'Daq jIHtaH. "I'm in the room."
>
> and page 68: tlhIngan jIH. "I am a Klingon."
>
> Are we to believe that my being in a room is more continuous than my
being a Klingon? Is my location in the room more continuous than the
location of the toilet?
I think so. Being a Klingon is (for an actual Klingon) not an "action" or
a "continuing activity". {tlhIngan jIHtaH} would imply that you came into
the context being a Klingon (but might not have been in the past), is a
Klingon in the current context, and leave the context still being a Klingon
(but you might not be in the future).
Now, in the Star Trek universe, with its changelings and shapeshifters,
it's entirely plausible that someone can say this sentence and mean it. In
the real universe, someone might say this if they're "in character" as a
Klingon. But it would sound odd coming from an actual Klingon.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> On page 69, we have two examples right next to each other:
>
> nughoStaH nuq? "What is coming toward us?"
> nuq Dalegh? "What do you see?"
>
> What is there about the action of coming toward us that is more
continuous than the action of seeing? Are we really forced to interpret the
second question as, "What are you in the habit of seeing?" or "What do you
have the general trend of seeing, in a discontinuous, incomplete kind of
way?"
I don't think SuStel is claiming what you seem to think he's claiming.
You *can* ask {nughoS nuq?} or {nuq DaleghtaH?} But those questions mean
something like "What comes toward us?" and "What are you seeing?" That is,
they are slightly different questions than the ones actually asked.
{nuq Dalegh?} *can* mean "What are you in the habit of seeing?" (habit),
but it can also mean "What do you see?" (general truth). I think SuStel's
point is that it *cannot* (usually) mean "What have you seen (a completed
action)?" (which would be {nuq Daleghpu'}) or "What are you seeing (a
continuous action)?" (which would be {nuq DaleghtaH}).
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> [poD]
> It's similar to what Okrand explains on page 43:
>
> "The suffix {-taH} /continuous/ can be used whether there is a known goal
or not. {-lI'}, on the other hand, can be used only when there is an
implied goal."
I think you're misreading this sentence or taking it out of context. What
it's saying is that {-taH} does not imply that there is no known goal.
That is, it is saying that {-lI'} is a subset of {-taH}, rather than that
they have mutually exclusive meanings. It does not say that you can drop
both {-taH} and {-lI'} if the action is continuous.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> [poD]
> Is this enough? There's lots more, but I feel like I'm beating a dead
horse. Can we give it a rest?
I'm not going to reply to your examples because the message would be too
long, and I'll just be repeating myself. But I really don't think you
understand what SuStel's claim is.
--
De'vID
--20cf30051592e65fcd04c2803042
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p><br>
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> As usual, canon can raise as many questions as it answers. Like with t=
he common:<br>
><br>
> page 70: nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'? "Where is the bat=
hroom?"<br>
><br>
> Compare that to:<br>
><br>
> page 27: pa'Daq jIHtaH. "I'm in the room."<br>
><br>
> and page 68: tlhIngan jIH. "I am a Klingon."<br>
><br>
> Are we to believe that my being in a room is more continuous than my b=
eing a Klingon? Is my location in the room more continuous than the locatio=
n of the toilet?</p>
<p>I think so.=A0 Being a Klingon is (for an actual Klingon) not an "a=
ction" or a "continuing activity".=A0 {tlhIngan jIHtaH} woul=
d imply that you came into the context being a Klingon (but might not have =
been in the past), is a Klingon in the current context, and leave the conte=
xt still being a Klingon (but you might not be in the future).=A0 </p>
<p>Now, in the Star Trek universe, with its changelings and shapeshifters, =
it's entirely plausible that someone can say this sentence and mean it.=
=A0 In the real universe, someone might say this if they're "in ch=
aracter" as a Klingon.=A0 But it would sound odd coming from an actual=
Klingon.</p>
<p>lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> On page 69, we have two examples right next to each other:<br>
><br>
> nughoStaH nuq? "What is coming toward us?"<br>
> nuq Dalegh? "What do you see?"<br>
><br>
> What is there about the action of coming toward us that is more contin=
uous than the action of seeing? Are we really forced to interpret the secon=
d question as, "What are you in the habit of seeing?" or "Wh=
at do you have the general trend of seeing, in a discontinuous, incomplete =
kind of way?"</p>
<p>I don't think SuStel is claiming what you seem to think he's cla=
iming.=A0 </p>
<p>You *can* ask {nughoS nuq?} or {nuq DaleghtaH?}=A0 But those questions m=
ean something like "What comes toward us?" and "What are you=
seeing?"=A0 That is, they are slightly different questions than the o=
nes actually asked.=A0 </p>
<p>{nuq Dalegh?} *can* mean "What are you in the habit of seeing?"=
; (habit), but it can also mean "What do you see?" (general truth=
).=A0 I think SuStel's point is that it *cannot* (usually) mean "W=
hat have you seen (a completed action)?" (which would be {nuq Daleghpu=
'}) or "What are you seeing (a continuous action)?" (which wo=
uld be {nuq DaleghtaH}).</p>
<p>lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> [poD]<br>
> It's similar to what Okrand explains on page 43:<br>
><br>
> "The suffix {-taH} /continuous/ can be used whether there is a kn=
own goal or not. {-lI'}, on the other hand, can be used only when there=
is an implied goal."</p>
<p>I think you're misreading this sentence or taking it out of context.=
=A0 What it's saying is that {-taH} does not imply that there is no kno=
wn goal.=A0 That is, it is saying that {-lI'} is a subset of {-taH}, ra=
ther than that they have mutually exclusive meanings.=A0 It does not say th=
at you can drop both {-taH} and {-lI'} if the action is continuous.</p>
<p>lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> [poD]<br>
> Is this enough? There's lots more, but I feel like I'm beating=
a dead horse. Can we give it a rest?</p>
<p>I'm not going to reply to your examples because the message would be=
too long, and I'll just be repeating myself.=A0 But I really don't=
think you understand what SuStel's claim is.=A0 </p>
<p>--<br>
De'vID</p>
--20cf30051592e65fcd04c2803042--
--===============3258909579188890313==
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
--===============3258909579188890313==--
