tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 08 17:17:39 2015
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Using betleH vocabulary (was RE: Klingon Word of the Day: jIrmoH)
- From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Using betleH vocabulary (was RE: Klingon Word of the Day: jIrmoH)
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 02:17:25 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=b5A/LRAW4CLaZLwn4hWRI6psQwKSkjE+VDM06TphxK8=; b=W8Ku5H0Hywxbaw5KGCEFgkN7E7jt5npk6dGc5NkpuGN4c25lU5KQjOuEErcvm/Stjm p66mmL3AzugBEk8q4w5/chXqkk0lrFhgOJYc60b8cQ3OieE7u6TI774ANBbnQn3LFmVi 5MtXNAJDqesdq1y2qclGKe4dwBHYHtEGrfYCfx0vQO6h0UcWwzLJYQgi8bzl0Q6pxGsW /KqlxRL58NK9bax4o7YP+5df0r0FDcAdfvGGmAG8svevgLdKPrlX8g9sovYjKRVAk2uR q2L+EbbVBga6RRdjhZh6x7W6uote1Ve48gB14rN7R4L6NfZ+u8PTWlZdORKzctWM6wLH +53w==
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- List-archive: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/>
- List-id: <tlhingan-hol.kli.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
- References: <[email protected]>
On 8 April 2015 at 21:59, Robyn Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wish I could run sentences like these past Maltz.
qepHomvaD bIjeSchugh 'eb DaSuqlaH. :-)
Qov:
> betleH vIchaQ.
> jIchaQ.
> gholwI' qabDaq jIchaQ.
> gholwI' qabvaD jIchaQ.
> betleH vIngol.
> yIngol! (said while helping someone carry a table through a door).
>
> My interpretation is that all of these are useable:
wa' DoS wIqIp.
Qov:
> that is that a betleH is
> the expected and implied object of the verb, such that when no object is
> specified it is assumed to be about a betleH, but that the action could be
> understood for other objects, just as if I told my partner to "steer right"
> or "pitch up" when carrying the hypothetical table.
ghaytan nIyajbe' nuv law', 'ach Duyajbej 'op. 'orwI' chaHbe' HochHom nuvpu''e'.
'ach tlhoS SuvwI'pu' chaH Hoch tlhInganpu''e'. SuvwI' mu'mey Dalo'DI'
ghaytan nIyaj.
Qov:
> It can be frustrating when we have specialized vocabulary but lack generic
> terms. The temptation is to use the specialized word metaphorically, but I
> don't want to dilute its true meaning.
I think that while Marc Okrand often defines a verb to be specific to
a situation, they are intended to be more generic than their
definitions. But he doesn't give the most generic definition to give
himself wriggle room to change his mind later.
Consider the following verb pairs:
{lol} v. be in a stance (people, animals, etc.), or be in an attitude
(aircraft, maybe spacecraft)
{tor} v. kneel (people, animals, etc.), or pitch (aircraft)
{ron} v. be rolling (dice), or roll/tilt (aircraft)
{DIj} v. paint with a pigment stick, or slide one sword blade along another
Based on {lol}, {tor}, I'd expect {ron}, {Der}, {Dav}, {jer}, and
{jIm} to apply to people and animals. Or, at least, I would understand
such a usage if someone else were to use them that way. Similarly, the
example of {DIj} implies to me that {chaQ} and {ngol} are also
applicable to other than blade weapons. My theory is that the
definitions we have for these verbs are partial definitions, and that
they are more general, but of course that's just an assumption on my
part.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol