tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 22 22:19:23 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: yopwaH

Shane MiQogh ([email protected]) 

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
  I said that in referance to your "This might not be true  for everybody and their ancestry, but it applies to many." sentance. Seemed to me that you were trying to avoid religous conflict... I don't know, i've been rather distracted lately and i'm not thinking at my best. lol

DloraH <[email protected]> wrote:   
I apparently lost you. I was not talking about Darwin's theory of
evolution.
Evolution/evolve - a series of changes over time.

Long ago people used animal skins and such. Pants as we know them, with
zippers and belt loops, and pockets, were not designed over night. Clothing
design "evolved" over time, from some pieces of animal skin tied together,
then the great invention of linen, then the sewing machine, over thousands
of years we finally get pants that look the way they do today.


DloraH



> I don't think what you said has anythign to do with 
> evolution, so i don't beleive you have to worry about our 
> ancestors developing pants in such a way, i'm sure even those 
> of us who beleive in creation beleive that's how it happened 
> too... I mean, adam and eve (not steve) were naked... So, 
> pardon if i misunderstood you about "This might not be true 
> for everybody and their ancestry, but it applies to
> many." And you're right, it's a matter of klingon 
> development, and considering the way the klingons are, i'm 
> surprised they wear any clothing...
> 
> DloraH wrote: All this confusion about the 
> plural "pants"... this confusion confuses me.
> I've never had a problem with it.
> Long long ago my ancestors wore a simple loincloth held in 
> place by a rope
> or belt-like strap. Well, sometimes bare legs would be a bit 
> uncomfortable;
> cold, bugs, rough brush treking through the woods, etc. So they made
> leggings/pants, one for each leg and attached them to that 
> rope/belt. Two
> individual pants, separate from eachother. For some of MY 
> ancestors this
> was only a few hundred years ago. Eventually the two pants 
> were attached to
> the loincloth and evolved into what we know of today.
> 
> This might not be true for everybody and their ancestry, but 
> it applies to
> many.
> 
> We just need to investigate about the history of KLINGON 
> clothing and its
> connection with the evolution of the klingon language.
> 
> In the meantime, 
> If yopwaH is singular, it would be, well, grammatically singular.
> If yopwaH is plural, it would still be grammatically singular.
> 
> 
> DloraH
> 
> 
> 
> > ghItlhpu' Shane MiQogh, ja':
> > >They are either plural or singular for a reson.
> > 
> > As I said, if you can tell us what that reason is, then we 
> > *might* (but 
> > then, we might not) have a basis for saying that {yopwaH} is plural.
> > 
> > >If a *PAIR* of pants were a singular entity, then so would 
> > the klingon 
> > >version.
> > 
> > Again, Klingon is not a code for English, so there's no 
> > reason why the 
> > grammar of Klingon words needs to map to that of English 
> > words. A pair of 
> > pants *is* a singular entity. I don't think anyone would 
> > argue that a pair 
> > of pants is actually somehow two articles of clothing.
> > 
> > >It's hard to explain this, but... While looking it up, i 
> > realize that some 
> > >other languages have it as "pant",
> > 
> > Most others, in fact. The other languages I can think of the 
> > word "pants" in 
> > (French, Turkish and Ubykh) all treat it as grammatically singular.
> > 
> > ...
> > >So, really, we would have to talk about okrand about this, 
> > cause he's the 
> > >one that made the word, and only he can tell us weather it's 
> > plural or 
> > >singular
> > >in klingon.
> > 
> > That's true, but in the meantime we can make a reasonable 
> > guess based upon 
> > Klingon canon (which is what we often must do in the absence 
> > of any other 
> > evidence). In Klingon, there's not one attested instance of a 
> > noun that is 
> > treated as grammatically plural although it's semantically 
> > singular. In 
> > fact, the opposite situation is the one we find: semantically 
> > plural nouns 
> > such as {ngop} "plates" are treated as grammatically 
> > singular, not plural. 
> > For this reason, I still think that {yopwaH} is not a 
> > grammatically (or 
> > semantically) plural noun, and that {yopwaHDaj 'oH 
> > yopwaHvam'e'} "these 
> > pants are his pants" is the correct form, not *{yopwaHDaj bIH 
> > yopwaHvam'e'}.
> > 
> > QeS 'utlh
> > tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon 
> > Language Institute
> > 
> > 
> > not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
> > (Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
> > - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, 
> reviews, & more on new and used cars.
> 
> 







		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos ? Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
 Photo Books. You design it and we?ll bind it!

Back to archive top level