[99530] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] this / that as subject
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com)
Wed Sep 24 09:55:22 2014
From: lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <000901cfd7f9$6fd36ff0$4f7a4fd0$@flyingstart.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:54:56 -0400
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
While I agree with the suggestions given, since I've enjoyed the topic of d=
eixis ever since Marc Orkand explained it to me, I see that the difference =
between "This is a chair," and {quS 'oH} is that the Klingon omits the deic=
tic reference implied in the English, though there are other methods of tra=
nslating that idea, like {naDev 'quS 'oHtaH} and {pa' vavwI' ghaHtaH}. I ad=
d the Type 7 only because I remember something about that usually being use=
d in this kind of setting, for no reason that ever made sense to me. "This =
is a chair," is closer to "Here is a chair," than it is to "It is a chair."=
"That is my father," is closer to "There is my father," than it is to "He =
is my father," since in writing, there's no way to know how you are indicat=
ing where the person is that you are referring to.
So, going back to the original example, I'd add as a suggestion, {naDev Duj=
wIj 'oHtaH.} It's not better than {Dujvam 'oH DujwIj'e'} or {DujwIj 'oH Duj=
vam'e'}, but it stands as a peer and is with the stretchy space that is sty=
listic expression of an idea by different people, or by the same person at =
different times.
For that matter, you could also say, {naDev DujwIj tu'lu',} {naDev quS tu'l=
u',} or {pa' vavwI' tu'lu'.}
The rabbit needs skinning. There are so many choices of method...
On Sep 24, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> lugh Philip, 'ej batlh QIj.
> =
> Personally, where English says "This is a chair" "That is my father" I ju=
st say <quS 'oH> <vavwI' ghaH>, and point. Is there a functional difference?
> =
> - Qov
> =
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Newton [mailto:philip.newton@gmail.com] =
> Sent: September 24, 2014 0:36
> To: Brad Wilson
> Cc: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] this / that as subject
> =
> On 24 September 2014 04:17, Brad Wilson <bmacliam@aol.com> wrote:
>> I was thinking that there is no way to use "this" and "that" as nouns =
>> except as suffixes like {Dochvam / Dochvetlh}.
> =
> {Dochvam / Dochvetlh} are what I usually see for =93this=94 and =93that=
=94, respectively.
> =
>> Then I thought that a sentence like "This is my ship" might be =
>> rendered as {DujwIj 'oHvam}.
> =
> I think not. In {DujwIj 'oH}, the {'oH} is acting as a verb, in my opinio=
n, so it can only take verbal suffixes=97you could say {DujwIj 'oHbej}, for=
example, or {DujwIj 'oHbe'}.
> =
> I would recommend {DujwIj 'oH Dujvam'e'}.
> =
> And even if {'oH} were acting as a noun, {'oHvam} would mean *=93this it=
=94 (as opposed to =93another it=94?), which would make little sense to me.
> =
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
> =
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> =
> =
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
