tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 23 02:06:20 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: yopwaH

DloraH ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Different cultures have different clothing.  Ancestors of an American Indian
had different clothing than, say, an Arab, or Hindi, or Maori.


DloraH


>   I said that in referance to your "This might not be true  
> for everybody and their ancestry, but it applies to many." 
> sentance. Seemed to me that you were trying to avoid religous 
> conflict... I don't know, i've been rather distracted lately 
> and i'm not thinking at my best. lol
> 
> DloraH <[email protected]> wrote:   
> I apparently lost you. I was not talking about Darwin's theory of
> evolution.
> Evolution/evolve - a series of changes over time.
> 
> Long ago people used animal skins and such. Pants as we know 
> them, with
> zippers and belt loops, and pockets, were not designed over 
> night. Clothing
> design "evolved" over time, from some pieces of animal skin 
> tied together,
> then the great invention of linen, then the sewing machine, 
> over thousands
> of years we finally get pants that look the way they do today.
> 
> 
> DloraH
> 
> 
> 
> > I don't think what you said has anythign to do with 
> > evolution, so i don't beleive you have to worry about our 
> > ancestors developing pants in such a way, i'm sure even those 
> > of us who beleive in creation beleive that's how it happened 
> > too... I mean, adam and eve (not steve) were naked... So, 
> > pardon if i misunderstood you about "This might not be true 
> > for everybody and their ancestry, but it applies to
> > many." And you're right, it's a matter of klingon 
> > development, and considering the way the klingons are, i'm 
> > surprised they wear any clothing...
> > 
> > DloraH wrote: All this confusion about the 
> > plural "pants"... this confusion confuses me.
> > I've never had a problem with it.
> > Long long ago my ancestors wore a simple loincloth held in 
> > place by a rope
> > or belt-like strap. Well, sometimes bare legs would be a bit 
> > uncomfortable;
> > cold, bugs, rough brush treking through the woods, etc. So they made
> > leggings/pants, one for each leg and attached them to that 
> > rope/belt. Two
> > individual pants, separate from eachother. For some of MY 
> > ancestors this
> > was only a few hundred years ago. Eventually the two pants 
> > were attached to
> > the loincloth and evolved into what we know of today.
> > 
> > This might not be true for everybody and their ancestry, but 
> > it applies to
> > many.
> > 
> > We just need to investigate about the history of KLINGON 
> > clothing and its
> > connection with the evolution of the klingon language.
> > 
> > In the meantime, 
> > If yopwaH is singular, it would be, well, grammatically singular.
> > If yopwaH is plural, it would still be grammatically singular.
> > 
> > 
> > DloraH
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > ghItlhpu' Shane MiQogh, ja':
> > > >They are either plural or singular for a reson.
> > > 
> > > As I said, if you can tell us what that reason is, then we 
> > > *might* (but 
> > > then, we might not) have a basis for saying that {yopwaH} 
> is plural.
> > > 
> > > >If a *PAIR* of pants were a singular entity, then so would 
> > > the klingon 
> > > >version.
> > > 
> > > Again, Klingon is not a code for English, so there's no 
> > > reason why the 
> > > grammar of Klingon words needs to map to that of English 
> > > words. A pair of 
> > > pants *is* a singular entity. I don't think anyone would 
> > > argue that a pair 
> > > of pants is actually somehow two articles of clothing.
> > > 
> > > >It's hard to explain this, but... While looking it up, i 
> > > realize that some 
> > > >other languages have it as "pant",
> > > 
> > > Most others, in fact. The other languages I can think of the 
> > > word "pants" in 
> > > (French, Turkish and Ubykh) all treat it as grammatically 
> singular.
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > >So, really, we would have to talk about okrand about this, 
> > > cause he's the 
> > > >one that made the word, and only he can tell us weather it's 
> > > plural or 
> > > >singular
> > > >in klingon.
> > > 
> > > That's true, but in the meantime we can make a reasonable 
> > > guess based upon 
> > > Klingon canon (which is what we often must do in the absence 
> > > of any other 
> > > evidence). In Klingon, there's not one attested instance of a 
> > > noun that is 
> > > treated as grammatically plural although it's semantically 
> > > singular. In 
> > > fact, the opposite situation is the one we find: semantically 
> > > plural nouns 
> > > such as {ngop} "plates" are treated as grammatically 
> > > singular, not plural. 
> > > For this reason, I still think that {yopwaH} is not a 
> > > grammatically (or 
> > > semantically) plural noun, and that {yopwaHDaj 'oH 
> > > yopwaHvam'e'} "these 
> > > pants are his pants" is the correct form, not *{yopwaHDaj bIH 
> > > yopwaHvam'e'}.
> > > 
> > > QeS 'utlh
> > > tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon 
> > > Language Institute
> > > 
> > > 
> > > not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
> > > (Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
> > > - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, 
> > reviews, & more on new and used cars.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos - Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
>  Photo Books. You design it and we'll bind it!
> 
>

Back to archive top level