[tlhIngan Hol] [tlhIngan-Hol] A question on {ngIq}

[mayqel qunenoS]

De'vID,

thank you for all this information.

I read carefully your explanation ; some parts I understood perfectly,
while others still confuse me.

I'm trying to find a pattern ; a rule, which would unambiguously
differrentiate between the two possible meanings of ngIq. A rule or
rules, similar to the one/ones we have for Hoch.

Unfortunately, so far I can't seem to find a pattern..

All I can seem to understand so far, is that context is the only
full-proof way, of making the distinction between the two possible
explanations.

I don't know.. I just don't know.. Something eludes me here ;

And I'm continuing to get a headache, just by trying to process my own example :

"We destroyed his birds of prey one by one"

You wrote, that the way to go would be : {ngIq toQDujDaj wIQaw'ta'}.
However I cannot understand, why this couldn't mean too "we destroyed
a single bird of his birds of prey". Unless, this rule applies :

"..Whenever we know that there is a group of things, and the ngIq
precedes one of them, then in the resulting sentence the only possible
meaning is "one by one" PROVIDED we (the subject) are doing something
to/for the group.."

And I'm putting the "PROVIDED", to account for the outpost example ;
there, we don't do something to the group of the outposts ; we are
talking that each outpost costs whatever..

And this rule seems to agree perfectly with qurgh's fruit example.

Would you agree with this rule ?

qunnoq

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 7:46 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 June 2016 at 17:23, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh at wizage.net> wrote:
>>>>>> ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel
>>>>>> ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa'
>>>>>> ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may'
>>>>>> In one single move, he removed the hearts,
>>>>>> In one single move, he restored his honor,
>>>>>> In one single move, the battle was done.
>> [...]
>>
>> I see what you're saying about Kahless's actions, based on the English. In
>> one move Kahless removed the hearts, restored his honor, and the battle was
>> done... not "in a single move he removed the heart, in another single move
>> he restored his honor and in another single move the battle was done"
>> (implying everyone died after that last move). My understanding of the
>> Klingon clouded my reading of the English.
>>
>> I've come to a different understanding of {tonSaw'}, so I'm going to focus
>> on that for a minute:
>>
>> Are you saying that {tonSaw'} is the name for the "move" action itself, and
>> not the name for the collection of "moves" one can do in general?
>
> Yes. But why can't it be both, just like the English word "move" or "maneuver"?
>
> I think you're drawing the distinction between what I'll call an
> abstract "move-template" and a concrete "move-action" here, so I'll
> use that terminology below.
>
>> EG In
>> Street fighter, my character knows a bunch of "moves", but pushing the
>> button just does one "move" at a time, so the character doesn't know a bunch
>> of {tonSaw'mey}, he just makes one {tonSaw'} after another when you push the
>> buttons?
>
> I don't see why these options have to be exclusive? Your character
> perhaps knows the *{ro' tonSaw'}, *{HoS tonSaw'}, and *{maS tonSaw'}
> (these are his move templates which he can execute), and as the
> opening move maybe you execute the *{ro' tonSaw'} (this is the first
> move-action actually executed).
>
> The source for how I've interpreted {tonSaw'} comes from you,
> actually. You reported that Maltz suggested {tonSaw' Qav} for "The
> Final Reflection" under the belief that a "reflection" is a type of
> move (move-template) in the game of klin zha. But if it's important to
> preserve the "mirror" connotation of this move, he suggested {neSlo'
> tonSaw' Qav}. The fact that you can use {Qav} to describe a {tonSaw'}
> suggests that, under this meaning, it is a "move" in the move-action
> sense.
>
>> Moving a piece in Chess could be considered a {tonSaw'}?
>
> I would think so, if making "the final reflection" (the finishing move
> in a game of klin zha) is to use {[neSlo'] tonSaw' Qav}, then moving a
> piece in chess seems to me to be exactly a {tonSaw'}.
>
>> I was
>> always under the impression that {tonSaw'} was the name of all the different
>> techniques within a martial art, so {moQbara'} contains specific
>> {tonSaw'mey} that Klingons would learn and use in a fight. Kahless would
>> have known hundreds of {tonSaw'mey}.
>
> {notlh tonSaw'lIj} suggests that that meaning might also work, i.e.,
> "the technique you're trying to use (your move-template) is obsolete".
> Although, I suppose that this also makes sense under the other
> interpretation, i.e., "the actual thing you're doing (your
> move-action) is obsolete". They effectively amount to the same thing.
>
>> If {tonSaw'} refers to the move action, then Kahless only used one move in
>> the fight, and the array of {tonSaw'} would only have 1 item in it, leading
>> to {ngIq tonSaw'} meaning "a single move" (and then repeating that phrase
>> would tie actions together because it's all happening while the same single
>> move happens).
>
> I don't think Kahless used only one move in the entire fight. (Or
> maybe he did? I don't have the paq'batlh with me right now to check.)
> It's just that the particular paragraph with {ngIq tonSaw'} is focused
> on just that one final move (move-action).
>
>> However, what if the noun following {ngIq} could be a collection or a single
>> item, or a collection that I'm only talking about one item from, how do we
>> differentiate between the two intended meanings? Does {ngIq vIghro'
>> vISay'moH} mean "I clean a single cat" or "I clean each cat"?
>
> I think just context?
>
> {vagh vIghro'mey vIghaj. ngIq vIghro' vISay'moH} "I have five cats. I
> clean each cat in turn."
>
> {ngIq vIghro' vIje' 'ej vIghungHa'moH,
> [ngIq vIghro' vIje'] 'ej vItammoH,
> [ngIq vIghro' vIje'] 'ej vIbelmoH,
> [ngIq vIghro' vIje'] 'ej vIQongmoH}
>
> If it's been established previously in the text that the speaker has
> only one cat, that's a very fancy way of saying "I feed a single cat,
> and it makes him full, quiet, pleased, and asleep".
>
> OTOH, if it's been previously established that the speaker has
> multiple cats, then he's doing that action to each one of them. "I
> feed each cat, and make each one full, quiet, pleased, and asleep."
>
> (Also, if one isn't writing a poem, I think the three subsequent {ngIq
> vIghro' vIje'}s can be dropped. They're just for emphasis, really.)
>
> --
> De'vID
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org