tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 16 10:16:35 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: usage of Hoch and latlh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 06:51:30 -0700
>From: Terry Donnelly <[email protected]>
>To me, the fundamental nature of the N1-N2 form is "set N2 is restricted
>to the subset N1". This fully accounts for the behavior of the N1-N2
>form mas we know it:
Hmm! Very interesting theory! There's much to it.
>Possessive: {yaS taj} of the set of knives, the one restricted (by
>ownership) to the officer
>Genitive: {pIpyuS pach} of the set of claws, the one restricted to a
>pipius.
Yes... with the manner of "restriction" being deliberately vague this can
cover a lot of ground fairly well.
>It also accounts for the use of {pagh} and {Hoch} as we have recently
>come to know them:
>{pagh tlhIngan} of the set of Klingons, the one restricted to none
>{Hoch tlhInganpu'} of the set of klingons, the all-inclusive one
Note that {*tlhIngan Hoch} would still work froma set-theoretic standpoint
(the set of everything, restricted to those that are Klingons), but is MUCH
less logical, sensible, or understandable than {Hoch tlhIngan}. This works
quite nicely. Numbers? "Of the set of books, a pair..." Not bad.
>I believe this also points to the proper use of {latlh} and {vay'}:
>{latlh tlhIngan} of the set of Klingons, another subset
>{vay' tlhIngan} of the set of Klingons, an indefinite subset
This is actually a decent argument for preposing latlh and vay', something
I never really could see before.
It sounds to me like you're coming up with a rationale for Glen's claims
about partitives preceding... maybe the same one Glen uses, but you're
explaining it in a way I like better. It's still theory, but I find it an
interesting one, one worth thinking about. It also helps me understand how
he could be using "latlh" as a partitive, with my apparently imperfect
understand of partitives.
>Some of these words are difficult to translate directly when used this
>way (e.g. {vay'}. In these cases, we must get beyond the conventional
>English translation of the word, "someone", and get to the root meaning:
>indefiniteness. After all, it is only the fact that English has
>different forms for some nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., that makes our
>translations use different words. Whether we translate {Sov} as "know"
>or "knowledge", the form of the klingon word stays the same. The same is
>true of the words above:
>{Hoch} = inclusiveness; as a noun "everyone, everything", as N1 in an N2
>construction, "all"
>{vay'} = indefiniteness; as a noun "someone, something", as N1 in an
>N1-N2 construction, "some, a certain"
Weeeeeellllll, I'm disinclined to go adding definitions to the words given
(though admittedly Okrand's glosses are woefully terse and leave much to be
desired). Still, I'm not sure how much you really need to add: "Hoch
tlhIngan": of the Klingons, restrict by everything. "?vay' tlhIngan": of
the Klingons, restrict (by identity) to someone indefinite. I'm not sure
you're stretching them much.
>It gets in the way of understanding to try to treat these words as
>numbers or to try to squeeze Okrand's use of {Hoch} into a possessive
>translation. When I look at the fundamental meaning behind the N1-N2
>form, it seems very clear to me.
It's an attractive explanation of N1-N2. I'm not sure I'm ready to buy
into it completely at this point, but it's a nice point. It's likely what
Glen meant, but your explanation works better for me.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMevOL8ppGeTJXWZ9AQFFPgMAsjMQN7w1uy1wk4bkasKuCZL3vAGbdEWe
nybGpyMg7V7FybCicxWu4ZAclxwUkNXybsj9ekW0GXVldWYIRc8tcaWq81Nl/a8n
sTpikgGQXKu2NmiPtOP7xRJy6LkDGXmv
=Tn+2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----