[tlhIngan Hol] Reversing the order of {-vo'}

[SuStel]

On 8/10/2017 7:39 PM, DloraH wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 19:20 -0400, SuStel wrote:
>> On 8/10/2017 7:13 PM, DloraH wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 12:25 -0400, SuStel wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>>> What I'm trying to understand (and the more this thread continues, the
>>>>> "trying" becomes "struggling"), is why -as De'vID wrote- "the pattern
>>>>> is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}".
>>>> I don't know anything about there being a REASON it can only work that
>>>> way. What I know is what Voragh has already pointed out: we have many
>>>> canonical examples of*X-vo' Y-Daq OVS*  and none of *Y-Daq X-vo' OVS.*
>>>> The answer to your question is "that's just the way it is."
>>> For me, a leading -Daq would be the location where the whole [-vo' -Daq
>>> chegh] is taking place.
>>>
>>> HoD - [nuqDaq beq?  yuQ ghoSta''a'?]
>>> yaS - [jISovchu'be'.  yuQ ghoSlaw']
>>> yuQ ghoS HoD.  beq nej.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile... DujDaq puchpa'vo' vutpa'Daq chegh beq.
>> I don't think you'd even need to appeal to three syntactic nouns to do
>> that:*DujDaq puchpa'vo' chegh*/on the ship, he returns from the
>> bathroom./ There's probably some scoping rules baked into our
>> language-using brains that does this. No way to tell if Klingons do the
>> same.
> But you left out the part about returning "to the galley".
>
> I put the DujDaq on there to emphasis that the crewman is still on the
> ship; as opposed to returning from a toilet to a galley, in some
> building down on the planet.

I left it out for exactly the reason I stated: you don't need it to see 
what the role of *X-Daq Y-vo'**V* seems to be when X is of a greater 
scope than Y. I wasn't continuing to describe your scenario.

You're talking about the crew of a ship. First you talk about the 
landing party. Then you say *DujDaq puchpa'vo' chegh HoD*/on the ship, 
the captain returns from the bathroom./ This is unlikely to be 
interpreted as /the captain returns to the ship from the bathroom./ 
Thanks to the apparent scoping of syntactic nouns, you need to see 
*X-vo' Y-Daq* to interpret them in the same scope, /from X to Y./ In the 
other order, *Y-Daq X-vo',* it FEELS like Y has a different precedence 
than X. /On/at/in Y, something happens from X./

Again, we have no evidence of this; it's just some implicit scoping that 
we have trouble ignoring. It's probably evidence of English bias.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170810/1a7c2625/attachment-0016.htm>