[96684] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] "up to" or "as many as"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Fri Jul 12 12:34:38 2013
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:34:03 +1000
In-Reply-To: <51E0016C.5020703@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============2942938752058139650==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_7c72bab1-80da-4cb5-a3fc-f66a3a9ce04f_"
--_7c72bab1-80da-4cb5-a3fc-f66a3a9ce04f_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' loghaD=2C jatlh:
> Also=2C {jav} after {DuHbe'bogh}.
I agree. If it's important to preserve the relative clause=2C {DuHbe'bogh j=
av qech} is better.
jang SuStel=2C jatlh:
> No=2C I wouldn't do that. {DuHbe'bogh ghu'} is a more fundamental idea=20
> than {jav ghu'} in this statement.
> rut jav DuHbe'bogh qech vIHarpu' nIQ vISoppa'.
Though it violates no formal rules=2C {jav DuHbe'bogh qech} screams wrongne=
ss to me. If "impossible situation" is the most fundamental idea=2C why kee=
p it pulled out into a relative clause=2C when the most compact and tightly=
-tied phrasal unit would be {ghu' DuHbe'}? At any rate=2C I can find no can=
on example for [N1 RelV N2] that parses as a noun-noun construction at all.=
Conversely=2C several examples exist of [RelV N1 N2]=2C and these can equa=
lly happily be parsed either as [{RelV N1} N2] or [RelV {N1 N2}]:
Heghpu'bogh tlhIngan mInDu' "the eyes of the fallen Klingon" (S31)
Heghpu'bogh nuvpu' qa'pu' "the spirits of the dead" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 1.2=
5)
but
yIntaHbogh tlhIngan Soj tlhol "raw Klingon food which is still alive" (S21)=
(not *"raw food of living Klingons")
joqtaHbogh molor tIqDu' "Molor's still-beating hearts" (paq'batlh: paq'raD =
23.47) (not *"the hearts of the still-beating Molor")
loghaD:
> I don't understand why you don't want the {jav} in the subject=2C
> though. Is it because you feel that makes them be impossible only
> when considered together?
SuStel:
> Stylistic preference. It's the difference between "six impossible=20
> things" and "an impossible six things."
I see that loghaD's willing to concede stylistic preference=2C but I don't =
think this is a mere difference of "style" as such=3B even in English=2C on=
e is overwhelmingly usual and the other is very highly marked=2C almost to =
the point of being ungrammatical. The difference between {DuHbe'bogh jav qe=
ch} and {jav DuHbe'bogh qech} is that the former is fine=2C while the latte=
r is also highly marked - indeed=2C it seems to be no more than an implicit=
theoretical possibility at this point. That there's no formal rule prohibi=
ting it doesn't mean it can't still be weird and unidiomatic. Of course=2C =
if there *is* canon for the {jav DuHbe'bogh qech} pattern=2C I'm always hap=
py to be proven wrong.
QeS
=
--_7c72bab1-80da-4cb5-a3fc-f66a3a9ce04f_
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: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>ghItlhpu' loghaD=2C jatlh:<br>&g=
t=3B Also=2C {jav} after {DuHbe'bogh}.<br><div><br>I agree. If it's importa=
nt to preserve the relative clause=2C {DuHbe'bogh jav qech} is better.<br><=
br>jang SuStel=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B No=2C I wouldn't do that. {DuHbe'bogh gh=
u'} is a more fundamental idea <br>>=3B than {jav ghu'} in this statement=
.<br>>=3B rut jav DuHbe'bogh qech vIHarpu' nIQ vISoppa'.<br><br>Though it=
violates no formal rules=2C {jav DuHbe'bogh qech} screams wrongness to me.=
If "impossible situation" is the most fundamental idea=2C why keep it pull=
ed out into a relative clause=2C when the most compact and tightly-tied phr=
asal unit would be {ghu' DuHbe'}? At any rate=2C I can find no canon exampl=
e for [N1 RelV N2] that parses as a noun-noun construction at all. Converse=
ly=2C several examples exist of [RelV N1 N2]=2C and these can equally happi=
ly be parsed either as [{RelV N1} N2] or [RelV {N1 N2}]:<br><br>Heghpu'bogh=
tlhIngan mInDu' "the eyes of the fallen Klingon" (S31)<br>Heghpu'bogh nuvp=
u' qa'pu' "the spirits of the dead" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 1.25)<br><br>but<br=
><br>yIntaHbogh tlhIngan Soj tlhol "raw Klingon food which is still alive" =
(S21) (not *"raw food of living Klingons")<br>joqtaHbogh molor tIqDu' "Molo=
r's still-beating hearts" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 23.47) (not *"the hearts of t=
he still-beating Molor")<br><br>loghaD:<br>>=3B I don't understand why yo=
u don't want the {jav} in the subject=2C<br>>=3B though. Is it because yo=
u feel that makes them be impossible only<br>>=3B when considered togethe=
r?<br><br>SuStel:<br>>=3B Stylistic preference. It's the difference betwe=
en "six impossible <br>>=3B things" and "an impossible six things."<br><b=
r>I see that loghaD's willing to concede stylistic preference=2C but I don'=
t think this is a mere difference of "style" as such=3B even in English=2C =
one is overwhelmingly usual and the other is very highly marked=2C almost t=
o the point of being ungrammatical. The difference between {DuHbe'bogh jav =
qech} and {jav DuHbe'bogh qech} is that the former is fine=2C while the lat=
ter is also highly marked - indeed=2C it seems to be no more than an implic=
it theoretical possibility at this point. That there's no formal rule prohi=
biting it doesn't mean it can't still be weird and unidiomatic. Of course=
=2C if there *is* canon for the {jav DuHbe'bogh qech} pattern=2C I'm always=
happy to be proven wrong.<br><br>QeS<br></div> </div></body>
</html>=
--_7c72bab1-80da-4cb5-a3fc-f66a3a9ce04f_--
--===============2942938752058139650==
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
--===============2942938752058139650==--
