[97128] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] do {vIttlhegh} become {ngo'} or {qan}?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bellerophon, modeler)
Fri Sep 6 02:10:01 2013
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmO4yNtZNWfG5+7UsGDQGmPHH5p4AndMMMsgkPVj1nrMFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 02:09:34 -0400
From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============6847253256297212764==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b624d34eadde104e5b0e114
--047d7b624d34eadde104e5b0e114
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Interesting thought. And might the plural even be {vIttlheghpu'}? If a
proverb is considered to be in some sense capable of speech and to have a
life of its own...
This is more interesting than the supposedly objective division between
living and non-living, speaking and non-speaking, and more like the idioms
of real language.
(And if STID is canon, kill me now. It's just an alternate reality in which
palms meet faces much more frequently and with greater force. And Khan
might not be quite fluent in Klingon.)
~'eD
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I saw {vIttlhegh ngo'}, I instinctively thought it should've been
> {vIttlhegh qan}:
> https://twitter.com/ghunwI/status/375061262540890113
>
> But is my instinct correct? Which would you use?
>
> I think my intuition is coloured by the Chinese correspondents
> (Chinese makes the same distinction between not-new-old and
> not-young-old as Klingon):
>
> ngo' - v. be old (not new) -- =E8=88=8A (not =E6=96=B0)
> qan - v. be old (not young) -- =E8=80=81 (not =E9=9D=92)
>
> In Chinese, a time-worn proverb is described as old with age (=E8=80=81),=
not
> old due to lack or fading of novelty (which is what =E8=88=8A would imply=
).
>
> But the Klingon "old" pair may not work in exactly the same way as the
> Chinese. Indeed, we know young Klingons don't describe new language as
> {chu'} or {Qup}, but as {ghoQ}. They also refer to old-fashioned
> language as {Doy'}, but how do Klingons refer to statements which are
> old, but still venerated?
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
--=20
My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog: http://bellerophon.blog.com/
--047d7b624d34eadde104e5b0e114
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Interesting thought. And might the plural even be {vIttlhe=
ghpu'}? If a proverb is considered=C2=A0to be=C2=A0in some sense=C2=A0c=
apable of speech and to have a life of its own...<div>This is more interest=
ing than the supposedly objective division between living and non-living, s=
peaking and non-speaking, and more like the idioms of real language.</div>
<div>(And if STID is canon, kill me now. It's just an alternate reality=
in which palms meet faces much more frequently and with greater force. And=
Khan might not be quite fluent in Klingon.)</div><div><br></div><div>~'=
;eD</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri,=
Sep 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, De'vID <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailt=
o:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>>=
;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">When I saw {vIttlhegh ngo'}, I instincti=
vely thought it should've been<br>
{vIttlhegh qan}:<br>
<a href=3D"https://twitter.com/ghunwI/status/375061262540890113" target=3D"=
_blank">https://twitter.com/ghunwI/status/375061262540890113</a><br>
<br>
But is my instinct correct? Which would you use?<br>
<br>
I think my intuition is coloured by the Chinese correspondents<br>
(Chinese makes the same distinction between not-new-old and<br>
not-young-old as Klingon):<br>
<br>
ngo' - v. be old (not new) -- =E8=88=8A (not =E6=96=B0)<br>
qan - v. be old (not young) -- =E8=80=81 (not =E9=9D=92)<br>
<br>
In Chinese, a time-worn proverb is described as old with age (=E8=80=81), n=
ot<br>
old due to lack or fading of novelty (which is what =E8=88=8A would imply).=
<br>
<br>
But the Klingon "old" pair may not work in exactly the same way a=
s the<br>
Chinese. Indeed, we know young Klingons don't describe new language as<=
br>
{chu'} or {Qup}, but as {ghoQ}. They also refer to old-fashioned<br>
language as {Doy'}, but how do Klingons refer to statements which are<b=
r>
old, but still venerated?<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
De'vID<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r>My modeling blog:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 <=
a href=3D"http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/" target=3D"_blank">http:=
//bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/</a><br>My other modeling blog:=C2=A0 <a=
href=3D"http://bellerophon.blog.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon=
.blog.com/</a><br>
</div>
--047d7b624d34eadde104e5b0e114--
--===============6847253256297212764==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============6847253256297212764==--
