tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 11 04:42:32 2013
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] do {vIttlhegh} become {ngo'} or {qan}?
- From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] do {vIttlhegh} become {ngo'} or {qan}?
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:42:18 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=D2O1vZFWTFcOoh9iPDU9Vciikrg4q+sLnI6Ig89yzfA=; b=NoSFzbs7IF5ajDLtvd9+XFE5NISyNRiAoZyd9yk+eHB5ehAAzVcsqDCuk7SGXgvw28 S4rHFL7jGKJOgJSiurmWHQOV37FJ1B021SlcvzMGBUgd4GrwQ5uwJWvULEx1XtG3tDsv IDxfgm//YWH4UokesetHrkd2eF9TqYrUMCJSgvULWUo0wjyzBSHocJDeTAjYgr1KJwy6 Hko45+qENhMKjkGDj9z9v8Eo/sWRRzHQpFOxHeY95J9DTREkYT3zd6ccsV2seWXzEWx/ cGmIrkyPqCcUtb9C1Z1Am02iZNnAfMPC9Niyh+e7ylHFApn+aKc+tTQ70JHcSzVxbR1X O8Qg==
- In-reply-to: <EF32BA4CBA6949A996B0FB85DD406565@no1>
- List-archive: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/>
- List-id: <tlhingan-hol.kli.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
- References: <CA+7zAmN=jCtJ4BLy7NqFkreB-87iGMCH5wg-7ycDv1YHHHUoMQ@mail.gmail.com> <EF32BA4CBA6949A996B0FB85DD406565@no1>
De'vID:
>> So KGT rules out {ngo'} applied to people.
DloraH:
> Does it rule it out? When talking about people, typically one is discussing age.
"The word {ngo'} in the phrase above means old as opposed to new.
Thus, it would be applied to objects or ideas, but not to animals or
people."
It certainly rules out something like {nuv ngo'} or {tlhIngan ngo'}.
Perhaps it leaves room for {ghuv ngo'} and {mangHom ngo'}, but I'm not
sure.
DloraH:
> A new chancellor is not necessarily young. He could be 100 years old, but became chancellor just
> yesterday.
qen Qang moj. DaH che'bogh Qang ghaH.
The problem with {Qang ngo'} is that I'm not sure if it means
"(current) chancellor who has been serving for a long time" or "former
chancellor (who is no longer serving in that position)". Klingon makes
a finer distinction than English for "old (not young)" and "old (not
new)"; but it doesn't make the distinction between "old (not recent)"
and "old (not current)".
DloraH:
> Likewise, if he has been chancellor for a while, he is not new, and the opposite is
> ngo'.
ben law' [qenHa'?] Qang gheSpu'. qaStaHvIS poH nI' Qang Da.
DloraH:
> One's service as chancellor can be new or old (ngo').
ngo' patlhDaj. 'ach ngo'laHbe'law' ghaH.
DloraH:
> A couple's friendship can be new or old (ngo').
Their friendship, yes; but can one of them be a {jup ngo'}? (And
again: does it mean "long-time" friend, or "former" friend?)
DloraH:
> The age of the people involved would use young or old (qan).
The people themselves can be {qan}. The sentence from KGT seems to
suggest that the people themselves cannot be {ngo'} (though something
about them can be).
DloraH:
> Reminds me of whether one uses "capable of language" when someone is dead. It depends on what
> aspect of the person you are discussing.
It doesn't seem analogous to me. A dead Romulan is still a Romulan. So
is a Romulan baby who is incapable (yet) of speech, or a mute Romulan.
KGT says {ngo'} "would be applied to objects or ideas, but not to
animals or people." Just because we're talking about someone as a
friend or a chancellor, it doesn't mean that they're suddenly not a
person and become an object or idea.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol