tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 23 20:11:16 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
qaD vIjang: leng'a'
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: qaD vIjang: leng'a'
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 09:08:56 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS's message of Wed, 23 Mar 94 11:11:43 EST <[email protected]>
>From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
>Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 11:11:43 EST
>Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Mark E. Shoulson jay'?
>Nah. -choH is an instantaneous thing, surely. "It took three days to start
>to be ready to celebrate"? Hm. It actually does make sense in English ;) ,
>and I guess I'm thinking of the Esperanto ek- (before anyone complains,
>Esperanto has an affix denoting start of an action; English doesn't.) I
>think it's odd to say you're spending three days loprupchoHtaHvIS; if you're
>spending three days *in order to start being ready", it makes more sense to
>spend them loprupmeH, or even lopchoHmeH.
I must admit; I, too, have been considering "-choH" to be analogous to
Esperanto "ek-". It really doesn't seem a bad idea. The description in
TKD seems to encourage that. But not completely. "ek-" emphasizes
suddenness with the change, "choH-" seems to put the emphasis on the change
more than the suddenness (cf. the verb "choH", which is undoubtedly
related). So "lopchoHmeH" makes sense, where spending 3 days "ekfesti"
sounds contradictory. Hmmm, ya know, if you're using "lopchoH", it's even
better if you do "lopchoHlI'meH", no? Or are the various aspects confusing
me again? If you consider that "choH-" is also partly "-igx" (not just
"-ek"); i.e. it's "becoming", then "loprupchoHmeH" doesn't seem all that
bad. It may not be the best word for the situation, in light of your
arguments, but it does make a certain amount of sense.
>="ghIr" may be overly idiomatic, though.
>No question of it. "To Descend"? The best way of arresting such calqued
>idiomaticisms is to use a synonym in the English, and see if it works.
Yeah; I like "jotchoHlI'" or some such.
>=>> "altar" chu' taghmeH 'utbej tay'a'.
>=>My understanding of the TKD entries, that subsequent definitions illuminate
>=>previous, and that thus "tagh" means "initiate" *as in* "begin a process"
>=>is at variance with yours. I would say Sugh, but of course that wasn't
>=>intended for inanimates either.
>=I like "Sugh"; I'm not sure "tagh" is bad.
>I start an altar? Mi komencas altaron? Well, it does depend on how you read
>TKD.
I suppose; I think I agree with you on the reading.
>=>> tIqghach javmaH jav vatlhvI' wIlengpu'! numer De'vam! toH, John
>=>> Lipinski jup'e' ponglu'bogh wIghaj,
>=>No. Klingon does not, to our knowledge, have double object constructions,
>=>so this can only mean "we have J.L.'s friend who is named." You'd need
>=>to say something like "pa' jup wIghaj. J.L. 'oH pongDaj/ ghaHvaD "J.L."
>=>ponglu'")
>=This is verb-in-apposition stuff, which is, granted, under discussion.
>=Would it help if they both had "-'e'" on them, so they couldn't be
>=noun-noun constructions?
>No, it's not apposition. Apposition is "I called my brother, the butcher" =
>= "I called my brother. I called the butcher". (Equivalent as far as truth
>conditions are concerned.) "I called him Joe" is not equivalent to "I
>called him. I called Joe." The two nouns are not fulfilling the same
>semantic role; one is a patient, the other is probably an instrument. You
>can't say "I called him, you know, *Joe*" (which *is* an apposition) to
>mean "I called him Joe". So this cannot be handled by apposition.
Yeah; this time I misread. I realized it after I sent it.
Actually, Klingon *sdoes* havedouble-objects of a certain type. Recall
"ro'qegh'Iwchab HInob" as an abbreviation for "jIHvaD ro'qegh'Iwchab
yInob". Thus, the second object can be considered to be in "-vaD" case, if
you want to read it that way. Just a thought.
>=>>Nancy rI' 'e' nIDmeH Rob rut mamev, 'ach not tu'laHbe'.
>=>We often ceased? Anglicism. As far as we know in canon, you have to stop
>=>doing *something*; I initially assumed you were preventing R from calling
>=>N. "'e' nIDmeH R, maleng rut 'e' mamev."
>=Yeah, actually it did look like they were stopping Rob from calling at
>=first glance. 'Course, it'd have to be "wImev"... (in your sentence as
>=well)
>In fact, the ma- in the original makes it more palatable for "stop [going]",
>but I think it would be clearer if "maleng 'e' wImev" was used.
If you have "maleng rut 'e'..." you have to have "wImev"; you had "mamev".
I was pointing that out. The original's "mamev" was OK (or closer to OK).
>--
>Nick.
~mark