tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 15 03:22:29 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Type 7
<p><br>
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> As usual, canon can raise as many questions as it answers. Like with the common:<br>
><br>
> page 70: nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'? "Where is the bathroom?"<br>
><br>
> Compare that to:<br>
><br>
> page 27: pa'Daq jIHtaH. "I'm in the room."<br>
><br>
> and page 68: tlhIngan jIH. "I am a Klingon."<br>
><br>
> Are we to believe that my being in a room is more continuous than my being a Klingon? Is my location in the room more continuous than the location of the toilet?</p>
<p>I think so. Being a Klingon is (for an actual Klingon) not an "action" or a "continuing activity". {tlhIngan jIHtaH} would imply that you came into the context being a Klingon (but might not have been in the past), is a Klingon in the current context, and leave the context still being a Klingon (but you might not be in the future). </p>
<p>Now, in the Star Trek universe, with its changelings and shapeshifters, it's entirely plausible that someone can say this sentence and mean it. In the real universe, someone might say this if they're "in character" as a Klingon. But it would sound odd coming from an actual Klingon.</p>
<p>lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> On page 69, we have two examples right next to each other:<br>
><br>
> nughoStaH nuq? "What is coming toward us?"<br>
> nuq Dalegh? "What do you see?"<br>
><br>
> What is there about the action of coming toward us that is more continuous than the action of seeing? Are we really forced to interpret the second question as, "What are you in the habit of seeing?" or "What do you have the general trend of seeing, in a discontinuous, incomplete kind of way?"</p>
<p>I don't think SuStel is claiming what you seem to think he's claiming. </p>
<p>You *can* ask {nughoS nuq?} or {nuq DaleghtaH?} But those questions mean something like "What comes toward us?" and "What are you seeing?" That is, they are slightly different questions than the ones actually asked. </p>
<p>{nuq Dalegh?} *can* mean "What are you in the habit of seeing?" (habit), but it can also mean "What do you see?" (general truth). I think SuStel's point is that it *cannot* (usually) mean "What have you seen (a completed action)?" (which would be {nuq Daleghpu'}) or "What are you seeing (a continuous action)?" (which would be {nuq DaleghtaH}).</p>
<p>lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> [poD]<br>
> It's similar to what Okrand explains on page 43:<br>
><br>
> "The suffix {-taH} /continuous/ can be used whether there is a known goal or not. {-lI'}, on the other hand, can be used only when there is an implied goal."</p>
<p>I think you're misreading this sentence or taking it out of context. What it's saying is that {-taH} does not imply that there is no known goal. That is, it is saying that {-lI'} is a subset of {-taH}, rather than that they have mutually exclusive meanings. It does not say that you can drop both {-taH} and {-lI'} if the action is continuous.</p>
<p>lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> [poD]<br>
> Is this enough? There's lots more, but I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. Can we give it a rest?</p>
<p>I'm not going to reply to your examples because the message would be too long, and I'll just be repeating myself. But I really don't think you understand what SuStel's claim is. </p>
<p>--<br>
De'vID</p>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol