tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 17 15:38:44 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Ha'DIbaH chalHa'DIbaH je

>From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 14:01:45 -0700

>>>poHvaD Qubpu'

>>I've been thinking about this for a while.  I've changed my initial
>>opinion, and now I think that you really *can't* extend suffixes like
>>"-Daq" and "-vaD" to time.  We have other ways to indicate things happening
>>during time, and a canonical example of how to use them: qaStaHvIS wa' ram
>>loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD.  Note that it does *not* say "wa' ramDaq"
>>for "in one night", but rather "qaStaHvIS wa' ram."  I'd think that should
>>be extended; it's a lot more logical, and using "in" and "for" for time
>>periods need not make sense in other languages.

>I agree with your conclusion but not your route to get there.  The real
>problem here is abuse of -vaD, of a type I've probably been guilty of
>myself from time to time.

>-vaD does >"*NOT*"< mean "for".  It is not an equivalent to an English
>word, it designates a specific concept, and that concept happens to be
>*one* of the meanings of the English "for".  The meaning is "for the
>benefit of".  Nothing is happening for the benefit of the period of time
>here.  It is not an issue of metaphoric extension of physical
>relationships to time, it's a matter of just the wrong meaning being
>applied to -vaD.  But my conclusion from this is the same:  qaStaHvIS 
>would be better, or something else akin.

This seems to happen a lot to us, Krankor: I'm nearly positive we're not
disagreeing on anything of substance, and probably not anything at all.
We're just stating it differently.  We have to stop meeting like this! :-)

>>Now here's a question: how is "-neS" working?  By the way I understand it,
>>extrapolating from usages in PK and such, I believe that "-neS" indicates
>>respect for the *audience*, regardless of the sentence.  By that reading,
>>the first sentence indicates the storyteller's respect for me (thanks!),
>>and the second the animal's respect for the bird (what you meant).  That's
>>just me, and there isn't ironclad evidence for it, but it seems to work
>>with what we've seen.  (Oh, and you misspelled "nuqneH")

>I think that the evidence is pretty strong, actually, particularly with
>what we get on the tape.  I completely agree with your interpretation.
>The -neS here conveys honor to the reader, which is almost certainly not
>what was intended.

*nod*.  For what it's worth, I'm told by linguists in the know that terran
languages that have analogous honorific forms use them the same way: to
honor the hearer, whoever that is.  Note those that I think the second
"-neS" is well-placed, since it's in a quote that is being said to the
bird, but you knew that.

As to the other points you make... I saw them when I read it the first
time, but was just doing too many things at once when I wrote my comments.
Must watch that.

>>~mark

>   --Krankor


~mark

Back to archive top level