[94596] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Wed Sep 5 08:32:23 2012
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 22:32:03 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmP+p-y2UYqj1U58fXhzTq76oiDfQDYi_kR0-AVma3C3zg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============8715804866415145102==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_8c8bf86a-2c48-430b-950a-d0988d13e0cf_"
--_8c8bf86a-2c48-430b-950a-d0988d13e0cf_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jIjatlhpu':
> As Qov said=2C Marc basically implied that -Ha' is *grammatically* legal =
on
> any adverb=2C but for some it's semantically nonsensical. It was 'angghal=
who
> pointed out during the conversation that ??chaqHa' would be weird=2C and
> ghunchu'wI' then thought of rut. So the sense we got is that while ??chaq=
Ha'
> or ??rutHa' are grammatically legal=2C they just aren't usefully meaningf=
ul
> (like chIS'egh or HolDaq). ngugh=2C ghIq and DaH probably wouldn't work w=
ith
> -Ha' for the same reason.
mujang De'vID=2C jatlh:
> Why wouldn't {DaHHa'} work? We have {SIbI'} "immediately" and
> {SIbI'Ha'} "later=2C eventually" (meaning derived from Klingon
> Monopoly[1]).
'e' vISov.
> I'd understand {DaHHa'} as an urgent version of {SIbI'Ha'}=2C in the same=
way
> that {SIbI'} is an urgent version of {DaH}.
I'm having trouble coming to grips with the distinction. Why is DaHHa' the =
urgent one of the -Ha'-ed pair?
> {DaH qama' yIHoH} "Kill the prisoner now!"
> {DaHHa'} "Not now!"
Ah=3B you make a fair point here. I guess {DaHHa'} "sometime other than now=
" might work=2C though I don't sense the nuance of sense between it and SIb=
I'Ha' that you do.
> (i.e.=2C We still want to kill the prisoner=2C but for strategic reasons
> we should do it later=3B you wouldn't use {SIbI'Ha'} here because you're
> interrupting someone's command=2C but after things have calmed down you
> might assure the other person=2C {SIbI'Ha' wIHoH}.)
See=2C I would have thought SIbI'Ha' is exactly the word one should use to =
countermand someone else's order to kill a prisoner. "Sometime other than i=
mmediately."
> If {DaHHa'} doesn't work=2C how else would you say "not now"?
I normally hate answering questions with other questions=2C but I will here=
: how would you have said "not now" last week=2C before we knew anything ab=
out this?
> I suppose you could repeat the verb: {DaH yIHoHQo'}. But this doesn't
> put the emphasis on the right thing (i.e.=2C "Now=2C don't kill the priso=
ner"
> is not quite the same as "don't kill the prisoner now").
In Klingon {DaH yIHoHQo'} can carry either sense. From PK we have the follo=
wing:
Hoch DaSopbe'chugh=2C batlh bIHeghbe'
eat everything or you will die without honour
showing that {batlh bIHeghbe'} can as happily have the sense "you will not =
[die honourably]" as it can be "you will [not die] honourably". So in {DaH =
yIHoHQo'}=2C either interpretation is possible: it could be "do not [kill h=
im now]" or "[do not kill him] now". So I would happily render "don't kill =
the prisoner now" as {DaH yIHoHQo'}.
> I'd also understand {ngughHa'} as "at a different time"
I guess I see that: "not at the same time=2C at some other time". Though it=
seems awfully vague and I doubt it would see much use.
> and {ghIqHa'} as "not subsequently=2C after some time".
So in other words=2C basically equivalent to SIbI'Ha'? The basic purpose of=
ghIq is to mark an action as being later in time than another: {jISop. ghI=
q jIQong} "I ate. After that=2C I slept." By how much is left unstated. I d=
on't get how ghIqHa' should in some way project Qong even further into the =
future to be "after some time". If anything I'd understand ghIqHa' as "befo=
re that=2C priorly" (so like wejHa'=2C we've already got more than one conf=
licting meaning between us)=2C and since we already have -pa' for "before"=
=2C I wouldn't see much utility for ghIqHa' in that sense either.
> {Ha'DIbaH HoH tlhIngan=2C ghIq Ha'DIbaH Sop tlhIngan. Ha'DIbaH HoH
> tera'ngan=2C 'ach ghIqHa' Ha'DIbaH Sop tera'ngan. Huj tera'nganpu'.}
Odd to the point of incomprehensibility for me.
QeS
=
--_8c8bf86a-2c48-430b-950a-d0988d13e0cf_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt=3B
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>
jIjatlhpu':<br>>=3B As Qov said=2C Marc basically implied that -Ha' is *g=
rammatically* legal on<br><div>>=3B any adverb=2C but for some it's seman=
tically nonsensical. It was 'angghal who<br>>=3B pointed out during the c=
onversation that ??chaqHa' would be weird=2C and<br>>=3B ghunchu'wI' then=
thought of rut. So the sense we got is that while ??chaqHa'<br>>=3B or ?=
?rutHa' are grammatically legal=2C they just aren't usefully meaningful<br>=
>=3B (like chIS'egh or HolDaq). ngugh=2C ghIq and DaH probably wouldn't w=
ork with<br>>=3B -Ha' for the same reason.<br><br>mujang De'vID=2C jatlh:=
<br>>=3B Why wouldn't {DaHHa'} work? We have {SIbI'} "immediately" and<b=
r>>=3B {SIbI'Ha'} "later=2C eventually" (meaning derived from Klingon<br>=
>=3B Monopoly[1]).<br><br>'e' vISov.<br><br>>=3B I'd understand {DaHHa'=
} as an urgent version of {SIbI'Ha'}=2C in the same way<br>>=3B that {SIb=
I'} is an urgent version of {DaH}.<br><br>I'm having trouble coming to grip=
s with the distinction. Why is DaHHa' the urgent one of the -Ha'-ed pair?<b=
r><br>>=3B {DaH qama' yIHoH} "Kill the prisoner now!"<br>>=3B {DaHHa'} =
"Not now!"<br><br>Ah=3B you make a fair point here. I guess {DaHHa'} "somet=
ime other than now" might work=2C though I don't sense the nuance of sense =
between it and SIbI'Ha' that you do.<br><br>>=3B (i.e.=2C We still want t=
o kill the prisoner=2C but for strategic reasons<br>>=3B we should do it =
later=3B you wouldn't use {SIbI'Ha'} here because you're<br>>=3B interrup=
ting someone's command=2C but after things have calmed down you<br>>=3B m=
ight assure the other person=2C {SIbI'Ha' wIHoH}.)<br><br>See=2C I would ha=
ve thought SIbI'Ha' is exactly the word one should use to countermand someo=
ne else's order to kill a prisoner. "Sometime other than immediately."<br><=
br>>=3B If {DaHHa'} doesn't work=2C how else would you say "not now"?<br>=
<br>I normally hate answering questions with other questions=2C but I will =
here: how would you have said "not now" last week=2C before we knew anythin=
g about this?<br><br>>=3B I suppose you could repeat the verb: {DaH yIHoH=
Qo'}. But this doesn't<br>>=3B put the emphasis on the right thing (i.e.=
=2C "Now=2C don't kill the prisoner"<br>>=3B is not quite the same as "do=
n't kill the prisoner now").<br><br>In Klingon {DaH yIHoHQo'} can carry eit=
her sense. From PK we have the following:<br><br>Hoch DaSopbe'chugh=2C batl=
h bIHeghbe'<br>eat everything or you will die without honour<br><br>showing=
that {batlh bIHeghbe'} can as happily have the sense "you will not [die ho=
nourably]" as it can be "you will [not die] honourably". So in {DaH yIHoHQo=
'}=2C either interpretation is possible: it could be "do not [kill him now]=
" or "[do not kill him] now". So I would happily render "don't kill the pri=
soner now" as {DaH yIHoHQo'}.<br><br>>=3B I'd also understand {ngughHa'} =
as "at a different time"<br><br>I guess I see that: "not at the same time=
=2C at some other time". Though it seems awfully vague and I doubt it would=
see much use.<br><br>>=3B and {ghIqHa'} as "not subsequently=2C after so=
me time".<br><br>So in other words=2C basically equivalent to SIbI'Ha'? The=
basic purpose of ghIq is to mark an action as being later in time than ano=
ther: {jISop. ghIq jIQong} "I ate. After that=2C I slept." By how much is l=
eft unstated. I don't get how ghIqHa' should in some way project Qong even =
further into the future to be "after some time". If anything I'd understand=
ghIqHa' as "before that=2C priorly" (so like wejHa'=2C we've already got m=
ore than one conflicting meaning between us)=2C and since we already have -=
pa' for "before"=2C I wouldn't see much utility for ghIqHa' in that sense e=
ither.<br><br>>=3B {Ha'DIbaH HoH tlhIngan=2C ghIq Ha'DIbaH Sop tlhIngan. =
Ha'DIbaH HoH<br>>=3B tera'ngan=2C 'ach ghIqHa' Ha'DIbaH Sop tera'ngan. =
Huj tera'nganpu'.}<br><br>Odd to the point of incomprehensibility for me.<b=
r><br>QeS<br></div> </div></body>
</html>=
--_8c8bf86a-2c48-430b-950a-d0988d13e0cf_--
--===============8715804866415145102==
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
--===============8715804866415145102==--
