tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 29 17:22:15 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:14:34 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
>
>On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:13:30 +0100 Matt Johnson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>It is a good thing that you introduce your post with the
>specialized vocab you have chosen to use. Realize that these are
>not officially recognized uses of these words and nobody should
>expect to simply use them this way without this kind of
>introduction EVERY TIME you use them like this in a post.
Just to note... this is not necessarily a bad thing. Mathematicians the
world over define their specialized notation each time the come up with
something clever in one of their papers, and don't even necessarily
differentiate it from other meanings for the same notation in other
papers. And everyone seems to get along okay.
>> Do we have any better word for 'cable' than {He}?
>
>Others have suggested {tlhegh} or {'och}. We don't have a word
>for "cable" so anything is an adaptation. I'd probably use
>something like {QummeH baS tlhegh}, but that's just because when
>lacking an actual word I prefer to effectively describe
>something instead of using a makeshift shortcut. It is just
>personal style, however.
One thing that often works is to use a careful description when introducing
it, and then use a short reference back later on. So you might say {QummeH
baS tlhegh} the first time the term shows up, but if you use just {tlhegh}
later on, it's pretty safe that people will figure you mean the same kind
of tlhegh (unless the context is really perverse). Sort of like in English
we might say "the big red book with gold letters on the kitchen counter" in
one sentence, but two sentences later just say "So I took a look in the
book" and people will know which one.
>That said, the first noun may actually clarify things if it is
>plural because the specific number {wej} is ambiguous at the
>beginning of a sentence. It might be the adverb {wej} and not
>the number {wej}. Making {DaHHommeyDaq} plural places a slightly
>greater suggestion that it is the number instead of the adverb,
>though it remains ambiguous.
We really have to find some way, even if just slang (sanctioned, though),
of disambiguating {wej}. It's really exasperating. I wouldn't be
surprised if Klingons would say, informally, something like {*mI' wej
tlhInganpu' vIlegh}, even though it's ungrammatical, in case of real
potential for misunderstanding.
>> lughbe'. qay'bej.
>>
>> vaj latlh chamwI' vISam. ghu' wIja'chuq.
>
>You can't use the prefix {wI-} with the suffix {-chuq}. By all
>indications, {ja'chuq} is not a root verb, despite its entry in
>the dictionary. It is almost certainly {ja'} plus {-chuq}. A
>better way to say this is: {maja'chuq. ghu' wIqel.}
No arguments... But I note that this very question (can we say {?paq
wIja'chuq} has been on my (at least) list of questions for MO for a *LONG*
time (I'm talking 4-5 years). I don't know that there are "indications"
one way or another, aside from the usual tendency (which I approve) to
presume that compound-looking words are in fact compounds and not relexed
roots.
>> De'wI''a'meyDaq nejwI'mey DIchu'. Qapbe'qu'
>> nejwI'mey. qay' latlh Doch!
>
>We so frequently use {latlh} as if it were a special word that
>is an adjective preceeding another noun that we forget that this
>is not the case. {latlh} is a noun. {latlh Doch} can almost
>ALWAYS be replaced by {latlh} alone. The only time you really
>want to put a noun after {latlh} is if that following noun gives
>you some information that a lone {latlh} would not give you,
>like in reply to "Do you want another blood wine, or another
>blood pie?"
Did we ever find out for absolute certain that {latlh} in fact precedes
the noun?
>> leQmey waHmeH, jabbI'ID mach DIngeH 'e' wIwuq. jabbI'ID puS polHa' DaH.
>> mapIHchoH.
>>
>> Hemey lo'bogh De' DInuD.
>
>Interesting. You used the plural suffix to indicate that you are
>examining the paths and not the data. Clever. I've never seen
>this done before, but it works for me.
For me too. Though you don't HAVE to disambiguate all the time. Even if
nothing in the grammar tells you the head noun, often the context will.
Just some musings...
~mark