[99053] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] emphasizing noun suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Wed Jun 25 10:47:10 2014
In-Reply-To: <53AAD5DA.1000405@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:46:55 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
To: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Cc: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============5281069259501270027==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b34385ad26f2e04fcaa2573
--047d7b34385ad26f2e04fcaa2573
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2014-06-25 15:59 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
> On 6/25/2014 9:41 AM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller wrote:
>
>> But then you are saying that nouns would work differently from verbs in
>> Klingon.
>>
>
> Well, sure. Nouns are nouns and verbs are verbs. Why should we think they
> work the same?
>
So why do you assume the morphology of these work so much differently in
nouns and verbs? They could, indeed, but I wouldn't take this assumption
unless we have evidence for it.
> In short: It's not true that non-rover suffixes say something about all
>> that comes before them.
>>
>
> I didn't make that claim about anything except {-na'}. I believe what is
> true of {-na'} is also true of {-Hey} and {-qoq}. I am certainly not sayi=
ng
> that all noun suffixes modify everything that comes before them.
>
> If we assume that the type 3 suffixes only modify the root noun, then we
> have no way to account for them modifying type 2 suffixes and not type 4
> suffixes, except to say that it's arbitrary. I'm not ruling that out, but=
I
> don't think that's it.
>
If we were talking about a {loDHom}, I think it's clear that we would not
> expect {loDHomna'} to be conforming only that {loD} is the correct noun. =
An
> N and an N-Hom are two different things. That's type 1. We have explicit
> instructions for at least one type 2 suffix and for all the type 4
> suffixes. So unless the type 5s are modified by the type 3s ({Dujna'Daq}
> "definitely on the ship"?), or unless we're dealing with unknown special
> cases, it's true that type 3s specify the accuracy of N-1-2, and not of
> -4-5.
>
>
Okay, well, {loDHom} is already lexicalized as referring to a male infant,
a boy, so that will probably be viewed as a unit. Perhaps a {loDHom} could
also be a gnome or a pygmy or a weakling or some tiny little man. For a
word like {paqHom} 'booklet', which might not be lexicalized, I would say
that {paqHomna'} is a book which is both small/minor/insignificant and
definite. I would understand it's definitely a book, and it's also tiny or
unimportant. It wouldn't necessarily have to mean that it's definitely a
book and it's definitely small. If a farsighted Klingon captain gives his
science officer a tiny object to analyze, saying that he thinks it might be
a book of some sort, that officer might then say: {paqHomna' 'oH!} - "It's
definitely a tiny book!", and then the {-na'} would logically refer to the
bookness of the thing, not to it's smallness, because that's already
obvious.
Other situation: A Klingon wants to buy a book on alcoholic beverages of
Vulcan. There probably isn't much to tell, so the book is a little 15 page
pocket booklet, a {paqHom}. The Klingon is surprised and says: "Now that's
really a bookLET!" (referring to its smallness and insignificantness).
Would he say {paqHomna' 'oH!}? I'm not sure. It would seem odd, since he
did want to buy a book, so of course he got a book. I don't think {-na'}
can emphasize the {-Hom} alone. But then again, a booklet it also a book,
so the example isn't the best, I admit. And then again, words in {-Hom}
might already be lexicalized and understood as a whole concept, as booklet
is.
Plurals are different, though, {paqmey} surely isn't lexicalized. So
{paqmeyna'} would only stress that it's definitely BOOKs (not other
objects), all the objects have the definite quality of being a book, each.
I don't think it can mean that they're definitely a multitude of items
called book (as opposed to one single book). I admit it's quite subtle to
show these differences of what exactly the suffixes are referring to,
sometimes. It's often vague and ambiguous but doesn't cause
missunderstanding, since it's often clear anyway.
That's my interpretation, judging from my understanding of Klingon grammar.
Perhaps there are some examples in Klingon canon that shows undoubtable
what exactly {-na'} or other suffixes refer to.
- Andr=C3=A9
--047d7b34385ad26f2e04fcaa2573
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2014=
-06-25 15:59 GMT+02:00 SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:suste=
l@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>:<br>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"">On 6/25/2014 9:41 AM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
But then you are saying that nouns would work differently from verbs in<br>
Klingon.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Well, sure. Nouns are nouns and verbs are verbs. Why should we think they w=
ork the same?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>So why do you assume the morphology of the=
se work so much differently in nouns and verbs? They could, indeed, but I w=
ouldn't take this assumption unless we have evidence for it.<br></div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D""><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex">
In short: It's not true that non-rover suffixes say something about all=
<br>
that comes before them.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I didn't make that claim about anything except {-na'}. I believe wh=
at is true of {-na'} is also true of {-Hey} and {-qoq}. I am certainly =
not saying that all noun suffixes modify everything that comes before them.=
<br>
<br>
If we assume that the type 3 suffixes only modify the root noun, then we ha=
ve no way to account for them modifying type 2 suffixes and not type 4 suff=
ixes, except to say that it's arbitrary. I'm not ruling that out, b=
ut I don't think that's it.<br>
=C2=A0</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If we were talking about a {loDHom}, I think it's clear that we would n=
ot expect {loDHomna'} to be conforming only that {loD} is the correct n=
oun. An N and an N-Hom are two different things. That's type 1. We have=
explicit instructions for at least one type 2 suffix and for all the type =
4 suffixes. So unless the type 5s are modified by the type 3s ({Dujna'D=
aq} "definitely on the ship"?), or unless we're dealing with =
unknown special cases, it's true that type 3s specify the accuracy of N=
-1-2, and not of -4-5.<div class=3D"HOEnZb">
<div class=3D"h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Okay, we=
ll, {loDHom} is already lexicalized as referring to a male infant, a boy, s=
o that will probably be viewed as a unit. Perhaps a {loDHom} could also be =
a gnome or a pygmy or a weakling or some tiny little man. For a word like {=
paqHom} 'booklet', which might not be lexicalized, I would say that=
{paqHomna'} is a book which is both small/minor/insignificant and defi=
nite. I would understand it's definitely a book, and it's also tiny=
or unimportant. It wouldn't necessarily have to mean that it's def=
initely a book and it's definitely small. If a farsighted Klingon capta=
in gives his science officer a tiny object to analyze, saying that he think=
s it might be a book of some sort, that officer might then say: {paqHomna&#=
39; 'oH!} - "It's definitely a tiny book!", and then the =
{-na'} would logically refer to the bookness of the thing, not to it=
9;s smallness, because that's already obvious.<br>
</div><div>Other situation: A Klingon wants to buy a book on alcoholic beve=
rages of Vulcan. There probably isn't much to tell, so the book is a li=
ttle 15 page pocket booklet, a {paqHom}. The Klingon is surprised and says:=
"Now that's really a bookLET!" (referring to its smallness a=
nd insignificantness). Would he say {paqHomna' 'oH!}? I'm not s=
ure. It would seem odd, since he did want to buy a book, so of course he go=
t a book. I don't think {-na'} can emphasize the {-Hom} alone. But =
then again, a booklet it also a book, so the example isn't the best, I =
admit. And then again, words in {-Hom} might already be lexicalized and und=
erstood as a whole concept, as booklet is.<br>
<br></div><div>Plurals are different, though, {paqmey} surely isn't lex=
icalized. So {paqmeyna'} would only stress that it's definitely BOO=
Ks (not other objects), all the objects have the definite quality of being =
a book, each. I don't think it can mean that they're definitely a m=
ultitude of items called book (as opposed to one single book). I admit it&#=
39;s quite subtle to show these differences of what exactly the suffixes ar=
e referring to, sometimes. It's often vague and ambiguous but doesn'=
;t cause missunderstanding, since it's often clear anyway.<br>
<br></div><div>That's my interpretation, judging from my understanding =
of Klingon grammar. Perhaps there are some examples in Klingon canon that s=
hows undoubtable what exactly {-na'} or other suffixes refer to.<br>
<br></div><div>- Andr=C3=A9<br></div><br></div></div></div>
--047d7b34385ad26f2e04fcaa2573--
--===============5281069259501270027==
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
--===============5281069259501270027==--
