tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 12 00:31:11 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] romyo' julyet je: bI'reS
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>jIghItlhpu', jIjatlh:<br>> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqayvetlh chuD QeH,<br><div><br>mujangpu' De'vID, jatlh:<br>> I had trouble understanding that {QeH} was a noun, rather than an<br>> adjective modifying {chuD}.<br><br>vIjangpu' je jIH, jIjatlh:<br>> The reading with {QeH} as an adjective makes less sense semantically: "the<br>> lovers' angry kin who indeed endure".<br><br>jang De'vID, jatlh:<br>> I guess it's the fact that there are three nouns in a row, which makes<br>> me want to interpret it as (noun) (noun adjective).<br><br>That does make sense. Three nouns in a row is not at all unusual in Klingon - in fact I think the longest we have attested in canon at the moment is four ({HoS Hal qengwI' naQ} "power supply stock" from S14) - but even that four-noun one is followed up by an adjectival verb {tIq}, which helps signal that {naQ} is not to be read as the corresponding adjectival verb.<br><br>> I'm not sure that it makes *less* sense semantically, without knowing<br>> the English. "The lovers' angry kin who survive (i.e., they continue to live<br>> after the lovers' death, and they're angry because of their deaths)" made<br>> perfect sense to me.<br><br>Fair enough.<br><br>De'vID:<br>> Also, possibly {chuD} is too broad for "parents".<br><br>jIH:<br>> I was going for this for two reasons: 1) the feud between the Montagues and<br>> the Capulets in the story goes beyond just the parents to include most<br>> members of the two warring houses, so I thought the choice was appropriate;<br>> but 2) more importantly I couldn't find any easy recast for "parents" that<br>> didn't go to at least five syllables (vavchaj SoSchaj je), eating up a full<br>> half-line. Are you thinking of an alternative?<br><br>De'vID:<br>> No, but maybe use {qup} somehow to indicate that it's the older (i.e.,<br>> parents') generation?<br><br>As I said, it's not just the parents' generation. Tybalt, the main and fiercest antagonist, is Juliet's cousin.<br><br>De'vID:<br>> It would also help to put in explicit plural markers.<br><br>jIH:<br>> yajchu'. For both {parmaqqay} and {chuD}, you think? So three alternatives:<br>> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqaypu' chuD QeH.<br>> taHqu'taHbogh parmaqqay chuDmey QeH.<br>> taHqu'bogh parmaqqaypu' chuDmey QeH.<br><br>De'vID: <br>> Looking at it like that, can {parmaqqay} be used that way? I mean, to<br>> refer to someone other than the speaker's {parmaqqay}, without any<br>> possessive suffixes. I sort of think of {parmaqqay} as if it were a<br>> word like "darling"... or something like that. It's perfectly fine to<br>> call someone "darling", or to refer to "his darling" or "her darling"<br>> or "their darlings" (e.g., children), but you wouldn't call two people<br>> "the darlings" when you mean that they are darlings to each other<br>> (that is, if you called two people "the darlings", I'd interpret it as<br>> two people considered darlings to yourself).<br><br>KGT's gloss is simply "romantic companion, romantic partner" (p.222),. and on page 199 it is explicitly said that the term is not typically used in direct address, so it's not like "darling" in that respect. Also, we know that other such mutual relationships aren't marked morphologically. In {ghobchuq loDnI'pu'} "The Brothers Fight One Another" (KGT p.79), for instance, there's no explicit way to tell whether the brothers are brothers to each other, or brothers from two different families, but we know that the brothers involved are Kahless and Morath, both sons of Kanjit.<br><br>De'vID:<br>> I interpret {targhlIj yIngagh, yIruch} as {targhlIj yIngagh, [targhlIj<br>> Dangagh 'e'] yIruch}, where the part in [brackets] is implicit.<br><br>jIH:<br>> Your implication is that {ruch} is in fact capable of taking an object, if<br>> that's the case.<br><br>De'vID:<br>> Yes, I take that the object of {ruch} is a verb (sentence), so that it works like {Sov} and {SIv} and so on.<br><br>{Sov} can take a simple noun object equally easily: {DaqwIj vISovbe'} "I'm lost" (PK), {'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He} "a route for travelling in unknown regions of the universe" (S99).<br><br>More generally, I think that if a verb can take a sentence complement - thus signalling that it can take an object at all - it can (probably) take an appropriate noun object too. It'd have to be checked individually for every such verb - {ngIl}, {SIv}, {qotlh} and {Hech}, for instance, are only attested with {'e'} complements, not noun phrase objects - and canon for some is too sparse to tell either way ({qotlh} is attested precisely once, with an {'e'} complement), but we have many verbs that are attested with both simple noun objects and sentence complements, so I don't see why sentences such as the following would be ungrammatical:<br><br>QuDvam ngIlpu''a'? "Did he dare this insurrection?"<br>laHDaj vISIv. "I wonder about his ability."<br>tev'a' Daqotlh. "You deserve the grand prize."<br>nuq wIHech? "What is our intention?"<br><br>QeS<br></div> </div></body>
</html>_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}