tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 08 19:43:40 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: nom ghel, nom jang

sangqar ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

> > > > maj.  Hol ngebHa' 'oHchugh "English"-'e', Hol ngeb 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e'
> > > vaj nIv mu'meylIj.
> > >
> > > ngebbe' tlhIngan Hol.  Holna' 'oH.  DaH ngoDvam wItobtaH: maQummeH
> tlhIngan
> > > Hol wIlo'taH.
> >
> > cha'logh mu'lIj'e' jIQochbe'. cha'logh bIbep. qatlh? lugh'a' qechlIj
> DaDelchugh SoH neH?
>
> Eh?  chaq bIqej SoH'e'.
>
> I had no intention of annoying anyone.  I was pointing out that Klingon is
> not a "fake" language.  Why does this make me grouchy?

I misinterpreted.  I said that if English is a {Hol ngebHa'}, that made Klingon a {Hol ngeb}, and
that therefore your idea was better.  I was agreeing with you, and yet you seemed to be
complaining about that agreement.

> > > > > <Hol wa'DIch SuqtaHbogh>
> > > >
> > > > HIvqa' veqlargh! SuqtaH*ghach*.
> > >
> > > "Constant obtaining of a first language."  chatlh!  lI'Ha'chu' <-taH>
> > > Dalo'pu'bogh.  <-ghach> Dalo' DaneHba'mo' mojaq Dachelta', 'ach mujlaw'.
> >
> > bIbepqa'. bIQochmo', chaq meq Daghaj.  'ach chatlhna' 'oH'a'?
> >
> > This suffix indicates that an action is ongoing. [sentences omitted]  Both
> of the above
> > sentences suggest a continuing activity. The meaning of -taH can be seen
> clearly by
> > comparing the following two commands: [sentences omitted]  In the first
> case, the maneuver
> > is to be executed once only. In the second, a series of evasive maneuvers
> is to be executed--
> > -the action is to be continuous. (TKD 4.2.7 [p.42])
> >
> > On the other hand, throw in the {­taH} as we were saying earlier and you
> have
> > {tlhutlhtaHghach}, which means <ongoing drinking> or the <process of
> continuing to drink>,
> > which is just fine but the English translation overemphasizes the
> "continuing" part. (HolQeD
> > 3:3)
> >
> > Hol SuqDI' puq, pe'vIl bI'chu''a'? ghobe'! qaS DISmey Suqchu'pa'.  vaj
> "ongoing" 'oH.
> > "continuing" 'oH. vaj lugh {-taH}.
>
> 'ach Hol SuqtaHghach'e' DaSaHtaHbe'!
>
> We weren't talking about the acquisition of native language (at least, I
> wasn't when I suggested the phrase {Hol wa'DIch}), we were talking about the
> language itself.  Thus, "constant obtaining of a first language" is not a
> good translation of "native language," though it is a good way to express
> the idea of "native language acquisition."

This time you seem to have misinterpreted.  I was saying that in English, linguists use the
phrase "first language acquisition", and that therefore "first language" was a good substitute
for "native language".

> > yIqel:
> >
> > qep'a' wejDIchDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'.  ghoHtah je. tIv'eghtaH
> je.  vaj
> > SuquvmoH. (msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand, November 10, 1996)
> > {-taH} lo' MO. 'ach qaStaHvIS qep'a', qaS jajmey. qep'a'Daq, rut Qong
> jeSwI'.  vaj qaS
> > ta'mey, qaS len. qaS ta'mey, qaS len.
>
> Huh?  chay' potlh ngoDvam?  'ej Duja' 'Iv: Qoch SuStel?

It sounded like you were criticizing my use of {-taH} in {SuqtaHghach}, and I was pointing out
that that use of {-taH} was consistent with canon.

> I don't know why you took my message the wrong way, but this really has
> nothing to do with what I said.  I think you saw something completely
> different than what I intended.

> I am one of the people who occasionally asks why everyone's so down on
> {-ghach}.  The only time I ever say anything against it is when people add
> {-taH} to it just so they can use it.
>
> Did you mean {-taH}?  Did you REALLY mean {-taH}?  If so, use it.  If not,
> don't try to find some flimsy justification to use it; find some other way
> to express the sentence.

I *did* mean {-taH}.  The process of acquiring a native/first language takes years.  It is an
ongoing, continuing process.  A child goes through several phases - single-word utterances,
holphrastic utterances, and so on.  It really is an ongoing process.  And {-taH} here is better
than {-lI'} becuase the child isn't *trying* to learn the language; it just happens.

(As a digression, I would just like to say that the eymologist in me dislikes the fact that
linguistics restricts the use of the word "holophrastic" to two-word phrases, when in fact it
*should* mean complete phrases.)

> jIqejbe' 'e' yIHar, 'ej ghIq QInwIj yIlaDqa'.

It just seemed strange to me that you were criticizing my agreement with you (in the first
instance) and I was also somewhat annoyed that you criticized my use of {-taH} (or perhaps it
was my use of {-ghach} you were criticizing) (in the second instance).  Combined with your
earlier criticism of someone's use of {mu'} in apposition, it seemed you were being critical for
no good reason, so I assumed you in a bad mood.  My bad.

I rarely use {-ghach} at all, and in this case, {-taH} is perfectly appropriate. Actually, in this
case I suppose I could have used {-ghach} without any suffix at all, since it's being used in a
technical term:

If you were a poet or philosopher or hard scientist and had to describe something very
specifically these kinds of words might be appropriate but it carries the feeling of very
technical arcane vocabulary, not normal everyday stuff. (From the previously cited interview)

While linguistics may not be "hard science", I think "first language acquisition" is technical
enough that it qualifies.  But {-taH} is appropriate for this ongoing process, and I think I'd
probably get reamed if used {-ghach} on a naked verb.  Trust me, I really did think about it, I
didn't just throw a {-taH} on so I could the {-ghach}.  {-taH} just seemed like a better choice
than either {-lI'} or a naked verb.

> SuStel

-Sangqar

Back to archive top level