tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 28 15:43:05 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "conjunction"?

...Paul ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Steven Boozer wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> I'm thinking maybe something like /rarwI'/ "connector"...  although I
>> could be sold on something a bit more explicity, like /mu'tlhegh
>> muvmoHbogh mu''e'/ "word which joins sentences" (as opposed to /DIp
>> muvmoHbogh mu''e'/ "word which joins nouns")...
>
> *{rarwI'} "connector" works.  I've also seen it used for "connection",
> "attachment", "fastener" and "link" (i.e. a URL or hotlink).  Nowadays I
> prefer "purpose nouns" - *{rarmeH mu'} - which can also be qualifeed with
> {mu'tlhegh} or {DIpmey} accordingly.  Another option is using {muv} "join"
> - {muvmeH mu'}.  ({muvwI'} however already means "suture".)  The latter
> might be contrasted with *{chevmeH mu'} a "separator" (i.e. a contrastive
> conjunction) - e.g. {'ej} vs. {'ach}.

So:

"conjunction" = /rarmeH mu'/
"noun conjunction" = /DIpmey rarmeH mu'/
"sentence conjunction" = /mu'tlhegh rarmeH mu'/

I'm a little against /muv/ for one (possibly silly) reason -- I'm not 
entirely certain its English gloss "join" means what we want.  In English, 
one can "join the marines" and "join the words"; context tells us that the 
first means to add one's self to the group, the other means that the 
action of joining was performed on the objects.  /muvmeH mu'/ seems like 
it can be "word to join" or "word for joining".  But it's clear that the 
word is performing the act of joining -- /muvbogh mu'/ almost actually 
seems MORE appropriate, because I think it's clear that /mu'/ is the 
subject of the verb /muv/, whereas /muvmeH mu'/ seems like it's not 
necessarily the subject.

muvmeH mu' vISov
"I know the word for joining" or "I know the word (in order to join)".

muvbogh mu' vISov
"I know the word which joins."

We kinda had this discussion around /Delbogh wot/ versus /DelmeH wot/.  I 
agreed with you at the time, but now I'm not so sure.  Looking back over 
the terms we defined, it's the only purpose noun clause in our list -- but 
we have /yu'bogh mu'/ "interrogative" and /qIp(be')bogh wot/ for 
(in)transitive verb, rather than /yu'meH mu'/ and /qIp(be')meH wot/.

Relative clauses seem to be able to stand 'on their own' out of context; 
purpose noun clauses seem a little less specific, and IMHO, don't seem to 
stand up on their own.  The example in TKD actually seems to reflect this 
distinction:

ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'
The enemy commander wishes a truce to confer.

/ja'chuqmeH rojHom/ is the purpose noun here, but the /rojHom/ is NOT the 
actual subject of /ja'chuqmeH/...  Whereas if this was */ja'chuqbogh 
rojHom/ (the nonsensical "truce which discusses"), the noun /rojHom/ is 
most definitely the subject of the clause...

Not sure on the /chevmeH mu'/ concept, though (or /chuvbogh mu'/ :) 
because I'm not sure /'ach/ really separates things; punctuation tends to 
do that.  ;)  Maybe something more like /tlhoch/ "contradict" would be 
appropriate, since conjunctions like 'but' still show a link, but it's 
contrast, rather than separation...

>> wot bIHtaH <<qontaH>>, <<ngevtaH>> je.
>> /qontaH/ and /ngevtaH/ are verbs.
>
> The subject of a pronoun-as-verb has to be tagged with {-'e'}.  It's one of
> those "just because" rules.  If there's more than one subject, {-'e'} is
> repeated:

> Also, although it's not explicitly stated anywhere, PRONOUN + {-taH} seems
> to mean "to be (located)".  (This is what I like to call an "undocumented
> feature" of the language.)  There are several examples of the

HIvqa' veqlargh!

I somehow reversed those two rules in my head.  New question -- how to say 
"I reversed those two rules."  ?  :)

...Paul

          ** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
   ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
            If it's not the same, it should be different.

Back to archive top level