[tlhIngan Hol] The latlh

[mayqel qunenoS]

De'vID:
> Why do you insist that sequences of words have one and only one
> meaning, independent of context?

I don't insist; I'm only trying to learn, something which will not
happen if I take things for granted.

lieven:
> I like the way you ask your questions. It shows that
> you are not only thinking from an english point of view :-)

this is good to hear !

lieven:
> Sounds like "we killed some of them, but there still is one more"
> I've always seen this as
> {latlh HIvje' vIneH}
> "I want another glass" (I already have one)
SuStel:
> latlh qab
> another face
> another's (someone else's) face
> an additional face

These answer perfectly my question. Thanks ! However there's an
additional question I need to ask..

Some time ago, at another thread I had written (latlh Dochmey} and
{latlhmey Doch}, and asked "is any of the two preferable, or more
correct than the other" ? Then SuStel replied: "that depends, do you
want to say the other's things or the others' thing ?"

Now, lets forget for a moment that in order to say "additional things"
I can just write {latlhmey}; would it be correct to assume that both
(latlh Dochmey} and {latlhmey Doch}, apart from the above translations
written by SuStel, can mean "additional things" as well ?

qunnoH jan puqloD

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:02 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 6:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> There is something I can't understand with regards to the {latlh}.
>
> first, lets read these canon examples:
>
> {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS}
> the fire is always hotter on someone else's face
>
> {latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIqang}
> pour the cold bloodwine into another glass
>
> I want to ask:
>
> 1. the {latlh qabDaq} and the {latlh HIvje'Daq} mean ONLY "the face of
> another" and "the glass of another" respectively, or do/can they mean
> as well "an additional face" and "an additional glass" ?
>
>
> It can mean any or all of these. latlh means all the things associated with
> other, another, and additional.
>
> latlh qab
> another face
> another's (someone else's) face
> an additional face
>
> latlh HIvje'
> another cup
> another's cup
> an additional cup
>
> Which meaning you get from it depends on context.
>
>
> In case you wonder why I'm asking..
>
> Suppose I want to say "for us there is an additional enemy", so I
> write {maHvaD latlh jagh tu'lu'}. Does this klingon sentence mean
> indeed "for us there is an additional enemy", or does it actually mean
> "for us there is an enemy of another", which doesn't make sense ?
>
>
> What does the context say? Out of context, I'd probably assume the
> additional meaning, as in "for us there is yet another enemy (which hasn't
> been discussed before)."
>
> But suppose enemies were being matched up. "For you there is your enemy; for
> Bob there is Bob's enemy." Then we want to make the point that our enemy is
> not whom you'd expect. maHvaD latlh jagh tu'lu' for us there is someone
> else's enemy.
>
> Sure, that's pretty contrived, but it illustrates that it's not impossible
> to take another meaning based on context.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>