tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 08 07:34:02 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

sundry replies

As I built up my list of things-I'm-gonna-respond-to-today, it
turned out that they were all directed at Guido.  {{:-)

>To me, both {-taH} and {-lI'} describe continuous action. But {-lI'} is only
>used to indicate that the subject is in the process of doing something *as
>part of his/her/its intention*, viz., consciously performing an action.
>{-taH} tends to imply that the subject's intentions are not important or that
>the event is happening without anyone's true intention.

Mmmmm, I'm not in full agreement with this.  It is not at all clear
that it is the *subject*'s intentions which are important.  Consider
the example right there in 4.2.7 about the missile getting closer to
the target.  Leaving aside arguments about it being some kind of
guided missile, the basic truth is that the *missile* has no intent
at all, it's just flying along.  It was the person who had aimed the
missile who had the intent.  The only real requirement for -lI',
then, is progress being made towards some finishing point.  Also,
-taH seems to be entirely neutral as to finishing point or intent.
I don't think it is in any way a true statement that "-taH tends to
imply... that the event is happening without anyone's true
intention."  To quote from 4.2.7, "The suffix -taH *continuous* can
be used whether there is a known goal or not."

But the other question is whether intention has anything to do with
it or not.  Suppose we're standing around at the base of a cliff,
and I notice a rock which has become dislodged from the top and is
plummetting downward.  Can I say this?

pumlI' nagh         "The rock is falling."

I say I can.  The action has a definite stopping point-- the moment
when the rock hits the ground and stops.  Yet there is no
intentionality anywhere.  There is no goal.  But there is definitely
progress being made towards a specific end-state.  I would claim
that my use of -lI' here instead of -taH simply calls attention to
that end state.  Granted, I'm sure this is a somewhat atypical case,
but it definitely fits the guidelines given us for -lI'.


>>Huh?  Am I losing my mind here?  I can't make out a word of this!
>
>>Lots of unflagged transliterations?  Oddly presumed compound?  A
>>joke, just to see who's paying attention?  Or are all my neurons
>>simply shot?  It sure *looks* like tlhIngan Hol...
>
>>                    --Krankor
>
>Hee hee. No you're not losing your mind. Just think about it a little more.

jIyajchoHpu'. (Finally!)  bIvalqu' 'ej muHaghmoH QujHomlIj.  {{:-)

'ach rurmeH ghItlhghachwIj vIchoHqangbe'.  {{:-)


>>Same admonishment.  Stop.  Read the subject header.  This is a
>>beginners question, and moreover, he was specifically asking about
>>the grammar.  This post is entirely inappropriate stylizing.  So
>>much so that I'm not even going to mention that I disagree with the
>>proposed change, and indeed would do it as:  chaq DaHjaj yInmeH QaQ
>>jaj.  [Yep, apophasis].
>
>>                --Krankor
>
>>[Yeah, if you really wanna argue about this, just change the subject
>>header, ok?]
>
>baQa' jItlhIjqu'neS QanqoroywI''e' joHoywI''e' reH vItoy'taHbogh
>
>All I was doing was trying to help a Beginner better understand what {-meH}
>was all about, since his usage didn't imesho quite reflect what was the
>correct meaning. It really had nothing to do with stylistics, sir.

Yes, it did, because, as you say, his usage didn't reflect correct
meaning *iyesho*.  It was a matter of opinion and not definite fact.
As I tried to indicate, it is an opinion quite open to discussion,
and indeed, I personally don't fully share your opinion here.  Which
is fine, discussion on the topic is fine.  Just not within the
beginners realm.

>waqlIj bIng vISay'moHmeH jatwIj vIlo'chugh bIQeHHa'choH'a'

Say'choHchu'qu'chugh neH bIH.  {{;-)


>ghItlh Qanqor:
>>What you end up claiming (in the followup post which I did not quote
>>from) is that lab is to transmit data and lI' is to receive it.
>>This doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.  Hev is to receive,
>>including data (used as such in ST5, reluctant though I am to rely
>>on that particular source for too much).  I'm sorry, but I can't
>>find any way to read the words "transmit data (to a place)" as
>>meaning "to receive data".  They are just NOT the same thing at all.
>
>jatlh je Qanqor <HIvqa' veqlargh>
>You forgot to change the subject header. It was originally <Re: KLBC:
>qajatlh>. See?! It happens to all of us!

vIjatlhbe'bej.  mu'meywIj vIwIv jIH, if you don't mind.  naDev pIch
vIghajbe'.  I did not change the subject, so I did not change the
subject header.  If my reply picked up the wrong subject header, it
is because it was already wrong on the thing I replied to.

However, the point is well taken.  It certainly is true that I did
not notice the discrepency.  {{:-)


>And about those subject headers: If it keeps up, Dobelbower's likely to
>charge up the phasers on the {lIy So'}, if that's what it takes to enforce
>the rules.

qarqu'!

            --Qanqor

Back to archive top level