tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 15 10:09:14 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
nIDwIj wa'DIch
- From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger)
- Subject: nIDwIj wa'DIch
- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:46:07
> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <ur-valhalla!cs.columbia.edu!shoulson>
> Subject: nIDwIj wa'DIch
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 05:12:34 -0700
>From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger)
>>However, with Skybox card S26 {lurSa be'etor je}, we have a canon
>>example of apposition: {... DuraS be'nI'pu' lurSa be'etor je},
>>translated as "the sisters of Duras, Lursa and B'Etor". I personally
>>have no problem (now) with saying {*Qob* puqloDwI' vIpong}.
> I don't think it's so simple. The case of "I name my son Qob" is NOT
> apposition. Apposition implies that the two nouns are referring to
I just read D'Armand's "rant" on this. {reH Heghrup SuvwI''a'.
HoH'eghlaw'pu' SuvwI''a'vam.} I probably remembered the last discussion on
{pong} and got "apposition" and "double objects" reversed in my mind.
>>We also have a canon use of the verb {pong} on S27 {Qo'noS}. This
>>card contains the sentence {roD 'oHvaD juHqo' ponglu' neH}. While
>>this sentence is combined with another in the English translation
>>("What is a single sentence in ENglish is often two in Klingon") the
>>translation is fairly evident: "(Qo'noS) is usually refered to
>>as simply "The Homeworld". To me, {juHqo' ponglu'} quite clearly says
>>"someone calls it 'the Homeworld'". (I do admit to uncertainty
>>about what {'oHvaD} is doing in there; it certainly seem redundant,
> Ah, no. The 'oHvaD *is* important; it answers the question: the thing
> named is flagged with -vaD and the name is the object of the verb
> "pong". Removing the confusing -lu', we get "puqloDwI'vaD *Qob*
> vIpong." See? The person (or planet) get -vaD, and the name (or
> description) is the object.
So a general formula for using {pong} this way would be:
*thing to be named*vaD *name* vIpong
or
*thing to be named*vaD *name* ponglu'
And, in our example, {... 'oHvaD ...} refers to something already explicity
named in the previous sentence. But, the example has the *name* {Qo'noS}
represented by {'oHvaD} and the description {juHqo'} in the name slot. This
is where I'm getting confused. Are {Qo'noS} and {juHqo'} equivalent, and if
so, does it matter which is in which spot in the sentence? If placement
doesn't matter, why the {-vaD}? If {Qo'noS} and {juHqo'} *aren't* equivalent,
then I can see the necessity of {-vaD} but I would think the placement of the
name and the thing-to-be-named would be fixed.
Does that make any sense at all?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| la' Qob sutai-qutvaj tlhIngan wo' Duj quttaj ra'wI' |
| Qojbogh tlhIngan ghom, maS Hurgh yo', *Northern* jogh, jogh boQDu''a' |
| === tlhIngan Hol yejHaD ghojwI' === |
| Fido: Bill Willmerdinger, 1:2613/477.1701 |
| E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------