[98426] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Multiple verb suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bellerophon, modeler)
Tue Apr 15 12:08:41 2014
In-Reply-To: <000301cf5862$0c2ed9b0$248c8d10$@flyingstart.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:08:14 -0400
From: "Bellerophon, modeler" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============5526815974041140599==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c16f74e729bc04f7170197
--001a11c16f74e729bc04f7170197
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>wrote:
Having met 'eD and recalling one of his weaknesses,
There are so many!
I suspect that he didn't intentially misorder the suffices, that he wasn't
> actually proposing the suffixes be ordered incorrectly, just trying to
> recall a sentence like
DuHeghrupmoHlaH vs. DuHeghmoHlaH
To my reading -laH acts slightly differently in the two constructions, but
> I won't give my interpretation so I don't bias yours.
I don't think any suffixes were misordered, and certainly no one is
proposing doing so. AFAIK, the closest anyone competent in Klingon (which
excludes me!) has come to this was MO making a portmanteau of -lu' and -laH
in KGT as an example of non-standard usage.
Actually Qov, I'd like to hear your interpretation of the above. I'd read
them both with suffixes acting in their grammatical order: "he can prepare
you to die" vs. "he can cause you to die," with -laH acting the same in
both. (BTW, I'm not sure {HeghmoH} is any different from {HoH}. I wonder if
MO conceived the latter as a contraction of the former). One could
conceivably interpret the former as, "He makes you able to be prepared to
die," but that's pretty awful. Interpreting the latter as, "He causes you
to be able to die" makes no sense unless you were previously immortal.
ghunchu'wI' cited an excellent example below of suffixes that make more
sense if they don't act in their grammatical order.
From: ghunchu'wI' [mailto:qunchuy@alcaco.net]
>
> Power Klingon's suggested formula for declining an offered liaison:
> DaH jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH
> "I must wash my hair now."
Rigidly applying the meaning of the suffixes in order yields "I cause my
hair to need to be clean now," which makes very little sense.
The rules for verb suffixes stated in TKD must give rise to some additional
grammar governing suffixes. They commonly seem to apply in order, though
this often doesn't work with Type 2 suffixes, especially combinations like
-nISmoH and -qangmoH. "Need to cause" and "willing to cause" express clear
meanings, but "cause to need" and "cause to be willing" make little sense
as direct action. What grammatical rules can be stated about the action of
suffixes, in combination with different types of verbs and each other? For
that matter, which combinations are not allowable? Can {-moH} ever be
applied to a transitive verb? It may be impractical to state a system rules
to govern every possible utterance, especially if context plays a role, but
the other extreme of ad hoc interpretation is imprecise.
~'eD
--
My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog: http://bellerophon.blog.com/
--001a11c16f74e729bc04f7170197
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Robyn Stewart <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:robyn@flyingstart.ca" target=3D"_blank">roby=
n@flyingstart.ca</a>></span> wrote:<div><br><blockquote style=3D"margin:=
0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204=
);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Having met 'eD and recallin=
g one of his weaknesses,</blockquote>
</div></blockquote><br>There are so many!</div><div><br></div><blockquote s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rg=
b(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
I suspect that he didn't intentially misorder the suffices, that he was=
n't actually proposing the suffixes be ordered incorrectly, just trying=
to recall a sentence like</blockquote></div></div></div></div><div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,20=
4,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">=C2=A0</blockquote></div><=
/div></div>
</div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-=
width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddin=
g-left:1ex">
DuHeghrupmoHlaH vs. DuHeghmoHlaH</blockquote></div></div></div></div><div><=
div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
=C2=A0</blockquote></div></div></div></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,20=
4,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
To my reading -laH acts slightly differently in the two constructions, but =
I won't give my interpretation so I don't bias yours.</blockquote><=
/div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote">
<div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:so=
lid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>I don't th=
ink any suffixes were misordered, and certainly no one is proposing doing s=
o. AFAIK, the closest anyone competent in Klingon (which excludes me!) has =
come to this was MO making a portmanteau of -lu' and -laH in KGT as an =
example of non-standard usage.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Actually=C2=A0Qov, I'd like to hear your inte=
rpretation of the above. I'd read them both with suffixes acting in the=
ir grammatical order: "he can prepare you to die" vs. "he ca=
n cause you to die," with -laH acting the same in both. (BTW, I'm =
not sure {HeghmoH} is any different from {HoH}. I wonder if MO conceived th=
e latter as a contraction of the former). One could conceivably interpret t=
he former as, "He makes you able to be prepared to die," but that=
's pretty awful. Interpreting the latter as, "He causes you to be =
able to die" makes no sense unless you were previously immortal.</div>
<div><br></div><div>ghunchu'wI' cited an excellent example below of=
suffixes that make more sense if they don't act in their grammatical o=
rder.</div></div></div></div><br><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 40=
px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,20=
4,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
From: ghunchu'wI' [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:qunchuy@alcaco.net">qun=
chuy@alcaco.net</a>]<br>=C2=A0<br>
Power Klingon's suggested formula for declining an offered liaison:<br>
DaH jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH<br>
"I must wash my hair now."</blockquote></div></div></blockquote><=
div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div>Rigidly=
applying the meaning of the suffixes in order yields "I cause my hair=
to need to be clean now," which makes very little sense.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">The rules f=
or verb suffixes stated in TKD must give rise to some additional grammar go=
verning suffixes. They commonly seem to apply in order, though this often d=
oesn't work with Type 2 suffixes, especially combinations like -nISmoH =
and -qangmoH. "Need to cause" and "willing to cause" ex=
press clear meanings, but "cause to need" and "cause to be w=
illing" make little sense as direct action. What grammatical rules can=
be stated about the action of suffixes, in combination with different type=
s of verbs and each other? For that matter, which combinations are not allo=
wable? Can {-moH} ever be applied to a transitive verb? It may be impractic=
al to state a system rules to govern every possible utterance, especially i=
f context plays a role, but the other extreme of ad hoc interpretation is i=
mprecise.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">~'eD<br=
>-- <br>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"_blan=
k">http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/</a><br>
My other modeling blog:=C2=A0 <a href=3D"http://bellerophon.blog.com/" targ=
et=3D"_blank">http://bellerophon.blog.com/</a><br>
</div></div></div>
--001a11c16f74e729bc04f7170197--
--===============5526815974041140599==
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
--===============5526815974041140599==--
