[98017] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] romyo' julyet je: bI'reS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Wed Feb 12 03:31:19 2014
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:30:52 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNrB7QEAJ1BOFTC09EcstUNpXPRZP50-R3+Xm7gAYFZQA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============1019775514454244396==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_565301c5-2c41-4c9b-b682-27efd3517e03_"
--_565301c5-2c41-4c9b-b682-27efd3517e03_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jIghItlhpu'=2C jIjatlh:
> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqayvetlh chuD QeH=2C
mujangpu' De'vID=2C jatlh:
> I had trouble understanding that {QeH} was a noun=2C rather than an
> adjective modifying {chuD}.
vIjangpu' je jIH=2C jIjatlh:
> The reading with {QeH} as an adjective makes less sense semantically: "th=
e
> lovers' angry kin who indeed endure".
jang De'vID=2C jatlh:
> I guess it's the fact that there are three nouns in a row=2C which makes
> me want to interpret it as (noun) (noun adjective).
That does make sense. Three nouns in a row is not at all unusual in Klingon=
- in fact I think the longest we have attested in canon at the moment is f=
our ({HoS Hal qengwI' naQ} "power supply stock" from S14) - but even that f=
our-noun one is followed up by an adjectival verb {tIq}=2C which helps sign=
al that {naQ} is not to be read as the corresponding adjectival verb.
> I'm not sure that it makes *less* sense semantically=2C without knowing
> the English. "The lovers' angry kin who survive (i.e.=2C they continue to=
live
> after the lovers' death=2C and they're angry because of their deaths)" ma=
de
> perfect sense to me.
Fair enough.
De'vID:
> Also=2C possibly {chuD} is too broad for "parents".
jIH:
> I was going for this for two reasons: 1) the feud between the Montagues a=
nd
> the Capulets in the story goes beyond just the parents to include most
> members of the two warring houses=2C so I thought the choice was appropri=
ate=3B
> but 2) more importantly I couldn't find any easy recast for "parents" tha=
t
> didn't go to at least five syllables (vavchaj SoSchaj je)=2C eating up a =
full
> half-line. Are you thinking of an alternative?
De'vID:
> No=2C but maybe use {qup} somehow to indicate that it's the older (i.e.=
=2C
> parents') generation?
As I said=2C it's not just the parents' generation. Tybalt=2C the main and =
fiercest antagonist=2C is Juliet's cousin.
De'vID:
> It would also help to put in explicit plural markers.
jIH:
> yajchu'. For both {parmaqqay} and {chuD}=2C you think? So three alternati=
ves:
> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqaypu' chuD QeH.
> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqay chuDmey QeH.
> taHqu'bogh parmaqqaypu' chuDmey QeH.
De'vID:=20
> Looking at it like that=2C can {parmaqqay} be used that way? I mean=2C to
> refer to someone other than the speaker's {parmaqqay}=2C without any
> possessive suffixes. I sort of think of {parmaqqay} as if it were a
> word like "darling"... or something like that. It's perfectly fine to
> call someone "darling"=2C or to refer to "his darling" or "her darling"
> or "their darlings" (e.g.=2C children)=2C but you wouldn't call two peopl=
e
> "the darlings" when you mean that they are darlings to each other
> (that is=2C if you called two people "the darlings"=2C I'd interpret it a=
s
> two people considered darlings to yourself).
KGT's gloss is simply "romantic companion=2C romantic partner" (p.222)=2C. =
and on page 199 it is explicitly said that the term is not typically used =
in direct address=2C so it's not like "darling" in that respect. Also=2C we=
know that other such mutual relationships aren't marked morphologically. I=
n {ghobchuq loDnI'pu'} "The Brothers Fight One Another" (KGT p.79)=2C for i=
nstance=2C there's no explicit way to tell whether the brothers are brother=
s to each other=2C or brothers from two different families=2C but we know t=
hat the brothers involved are Kahless and Morath=2C both sons of Kanjit.
De'vID:
> I interpret {targhlIj yIngagh=2C yIruch} as {targhlIj yIngagh=2C [targhlI=
j
> Dangagh 'e'] yIruch}=2C where the part in [brackets] is implicit.
jIH:
> Your implication is that {ruch} is in fact capable of taking an object=2C=
if
> that's the case.
De'vID:
> Yes=2C I take that the object of {ruch} is a verb (sentence)=2C so that i=
t works like {Sov} and {SIv} and so on.
{Sov} can take a simple noun object equally easily: {DaqwIj vISovbe'} "I'm =
lost" (PK)=2C {'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He} "a route for trav=
elling in unknown regions of the universe" (S99).
More generally=2C I think that if a verb can take a sentence complement - t=
hus signalling that it can take an object at all - it can (probably) take a=
n appropriate noun object too. It'd have to be checked individually for eve=
ry such verb - {ngIl}=2C {SIv}=2C {qotlh} and {Hech}=2C for instance=2C are=
only attested with {'e'} complements=2C not noun phrase objects - and cano=
n for some is too sparse to tell either way ({qotlh} is attested precisely =
once=2C with an {'e'} complement)=2C but we have many verbs that are attest=
ed with both simple noun objects and sentence complements=2C so I don't see=
why sentences such as the following would be ungrammatical:
QuDvam ngIlpu''a'? "Did he dare this insurrection?"
laHDaj vISIv. "I wonder about his ability."
tev'a' Daqotlh. "You deserve the grand prize."
nuq wIHech? "What is our intention?"
QeS
=
--_565301c5-2c41-4c9b-b682-27efd3517e03_
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'>jIghItlhpu'=2C jIjatlh:<br>>=
=3B taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqayvetlh chuD QeH=2C<br><div><br>mujangpu' De'vID=
=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B I had trouble understanding that {QeH} was a noun=2C r=
ather than an<br>>=3B adjective modifying {chuD}.<br><br>vIjangpu' je jIH=
=2C jIjatlh:<br>>=3B The reading with {QeH} as an adjective makes less se=
nse semantically: "the<br>>=3B lovers' angry kin who indeed endure".<br><=
br>jang De'vID=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B I guess it's the fact that there are thr=
ee nouns in a row=2C which makes<br>>=3B me want to interpret it as (noun=
) (noun adjective).<br><br>That does make sense. Three nouns in a row is no=
t at all unusual in Klingon - in fact I think the longest we have attested =
in canon at the moment is four ({HoS Hal qengwI' naQ} "power supply stock" =
from S14) - but even that four-noun one is followed up by an adjectival ver=
b {tIq}=2C which helps signal that {naQ} is not to be read as the correspon=
ding adjectival verb.<br><br>>=3B I'm not sure that it makes *less* sense=
semantically=2C without knowing<br>>=3B the English. "The lovers' angry =
kin who survive (i.e.=2C they continue to live<br>>=3B after the lovers' =
death=2C and they're angry because of their deaths)" made<br>>=3B perfect=
sense to me.<br><br>Fair enough.<br><br>De'vID:<br>>=3B Also=2C possibly=
{chuD} is too broad for "parents".<br><br>jIH:<br>>=3B I was going for t=
his for two reasons: 1) the feud between the Montagues and<br>>=3B the Ca=
pulets in the story goes beyond just the parents to include most<br>>=3B =
members of the two warring houses=2C so I thought the choice was appropriat=
e=3B<br>>=3B but 2) more importantly I couldn't find any easy recast for =
"parents" that<br>>=3B didn't go to at least five syllables (vavchaj SoSc=
haj je)=2C eating up a full<br>>=3B half-line. Are you thinking of an alt=
ernative?<br><br>De'vID:<br>>=3B No=2C but maybe use {qup} somehow to ind=
icate that it's the older (i.e.=2C<br>>=3B parents') generation?<br><br>A=
s I said=2C it's not just the parents' generation. Tybalt=2C the main and f=
iercest antagonist=2C is Juliet's cousin.<br><br>De'vID:<br>>=3B It would=
also help to put in explicit plural markers.<br><br>jIH:<br>>=3B yajchu'=
. For both {parmaqqay} and {chuD}=2C you think? So three alternatives:<br>&=
gt=3B taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqaypu' chuD QeH.<br>>=3B taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqa=
y chuDmey QeH.<br>>=3B taHqu'bogh parmaqqaypu' chuDmey QeH.<br><br>De'vID=
: <br>>=3B Looking at it like that=2C can {parmaqqay} be used that way? I=
mean=2C to<br>>=3B refer to someone other than the speaker's {parmaqqay}=
=2C without any<br>>=3B possessive suffixes. I sort of think of {parmaqqa=
y} as if it were a<br>>=3B word like "darling"... or something like that.=
It's perfectly fine to<br>>=3B call someone "darling"=2C or to refer to =
"his darling" or "her darling"<br>>=3B or "their darlings" (e.g.=2C child=
ren)=2C but you wouldn't call two people<br>>=3B "the darlings" when you =
mean that they are darlings to each other<br>>=3B (that is=2C if you call=
ed two people "the darlings"=2C I'd interpret it as<br>>=3B two people co=
nsidered darlings to yourself).<br><br>KGT's gloss is simply "romantic comp=
anion=2C romantic partner" (p.222)=2C. =3B and on page 199 it is explic=
itly said that the term is not typically used in direct address=2C so it's =
not like "darling" in that respect. Also=2C we know that other such mutual =
relationships aren't marked morphologically. In {ghobchuq loDnI'pu'} "The B=
rothers Fight One Another" (KGT p.79)=2C for instance=2C there's no explici=
t way to tell whether the brothers are brothers to each other=2C or brother=
s from two different families=2C but we know that the brothers involved are=
Kahless and Morath=2C both sons of Kanjit.<br><br>De'vID:<br>>=3B I inte=
rpret {targhlIj yIngagh=2C yIruch} as {targhlIj yIngagh=2C [targhlIj<br>>=
=3B Dangagh 'e'] yIruch}=2C where the part in [brackets] is implicit.<br><b=
r>jIH:<br>>=3B Your implication is that {ruch} is in fact capable of taki=
ng an object=2C if<br>>=3B that's the case.<br><br>De'vID:<br>>=3B Yes=
=2C I take that the object of {ruch} is a verb (sentence)=2C so that it wor=
ks like {Sov} and {SIv} and so on.<br><br>{Sov} can take a simple noun obje=
ct equally easily: {DaqwIj vISovbe'} "I'm lost" (PK)=2C {'u' SepmeyDaq Sovb=
e'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He} "a route for travelling in unknown regions of the =
universe" (S99).<br><br>More generally=2C I think that if a verb can take a=
sentence complement - thus signalling that it can take an object at all - =
it can (probably) take an appropriate noun object too. It'd have to be chec=
ked individually for every such verb - {ngIl}=2C {SIv}=2C {qotlh} and {Hech=
}=2C for instance=2C are only attested with {'e'} complements=2C not noun p=
hrase objects - and canon for some is too sparse to tell either way ({qotlh=
} is attested precisely once=2C with an {'e'} complement)=2C but we have ma=
ny verbs that are attested with both simple noun objects and sentence compl=
ements=2C so I don't see why sentences such as the following would be ungra=
mmatical:<br><br>QuDvam ngIlpu''a'? "Did he dare this insurrection?"<br>laH=
Daj vISIv. "I wonder about his ability."<br>tev'a' Daqotlh. "You deserve th=
e grand prize."<br>nuq wIHech? "What is our intention?"<br><br>QeS<br></div=
> </div></body>
</html>=
--_565301c5-2c41-4c9b-b682-27efd3517e03_--
--===============1019775514454244396==
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
--===============1019775514454244396==--
