[tlhIngan Hol] DSC Klingon Trailer transcription (NOT offlist)

[De'vID]

Can everyone listen to the spoken sentence and report what they hear?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZEQVw3uV9M&feature=youtu.be&t=44s

Admittedly, he speaks quickly and it's not absolutely clear either way. I
think I hear {wI-}, but could be convinced otherwise. (I originally
transcribed {DI-} because it's what in the written subtitles, and while
listening to it my brain didn't register a difference between what I read
and what I was hearing, so it's not that obviously mismatched.)

On 5 October 2017 at 02:45, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 10/4/2017 6:17 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 3:32 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> If they're allowed at all, there HAVE to be special circumstances, some special explanation that makes them stand apart from the first- and second-person prefixes, and you have no idea what that explanation might be.
>
> **I** have an idea what that explanation might be. It generalizes the prefix trick to explain things like {tuQmoH} and other uses of {-moH} on already transitive verbs. All it says is that when the prefix appears to violate the rule of {rom}, it could be pointing to the "indirect object" beneficiary instead of the (direct) object. Usually the beneficiary is implied by the prefix and the object is explicit, but I also consider cases where the normal object is missing and the grammatical beneficiary can be stated in its place
>
> Yes, this is Lieven's explanation as well. That Okrand has never said.
> Which means when he said "When the indirect object... is first or second
> person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second
> person object may be used," he really meant "When the indirect object... is
> a pronoun, the pronominal prefix may agree with that pronoun instead of the
> direct object." There is no distinction whatsoever between person. All
> pronouns may be prefix tricked. So why did he specify first and second
> person pronouns? Twice? Why were all his examples in that message only
> first and second person? And with different numbers? The original question
> only asked for second person.
>

There's no ambiguity in the sentence, in the sense that we can all
understand {'oH DInob} to mean "we give them it" ("we give it to them"). It
may be one of these cases where something's technically violating the
rules, but everyone understands it, like saying "there's three men and a
baby" instead of "there are...".

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171005/e2902b17/attachment-0005.htm>