[tlhIngan Hol] One more day

[SuStel]

On 10/10/2017 12:00 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, what kinds of "noun series" modelled along 
> variations of *beyHom bey bey'a'* would also feel right or wrong to 
> you (and other Klingonists reading this)?
>
>   * Using a *-Hom/-0/-'a'* series in a non-direct-object role, e.g.:
>     *Qe' chu' luSuchtaH ghomHom ghom ghom'a'* /"Bigger and bigger
>     crowds visited the new restaurant; the new restaurant drew
>     ever-increasing crowds."/
>

Works for me. I don't think its position in the sentence has any bearing 
on how it's interpreted.


>   * Using a different set of suffixes that suggest some other kind of
>     spectrum, e.g.: *qa'qoq qa'Hey qa' qa'na' vIleghtaH* /"I was
>     dismissive of the idea at first but I am increasingly certain that
>     I'm seeing an actual spirit."/ (This is an awkward translation.)
>

I don't see these as a spectrum, and these suffixes don't express what I 
thought of the nouns at the time; they tell what I think of them when I 
say the sentence. At best I would interpret this as my seeing something 
someone called a spirit but wasn't, then something I think was a spirit, 
then a spirit, then something that was definitely a spirit. I'm seeing 
different things in sequence. But there's no natural interpretation of 
these as a sequence, so my instinct would be add a conjunction afterward 
and explain the sequence separately.


>   * Not using the same base noun but with a series implied anyway,
>     e.g.: *jajlo' po pov tlhom puH DujDaj tI'taH */"He worked on his
>     car from dawn to dusk." /(This example also uses a
>     non-direct-object series, in this case a series of timestamps.)
>

Because the sequence is obvious, I could accept this. I would expect 
this to be received something like "*jajlo' *(ok)*po* (all morning, 
huh?) *pov* (wow, long time!) *tlhom* (still going?!) *puH DujDaj tI'taH.*


>   * Nouns that only imply a series in context: *'awje' qa'vIn wornagh
>     DItlhutlhtaH* /"We started with 'root beer', then had coffee, and
>     then we drank warnog."/
>
Same reaction as with the time stamps. *'awje'* (ok) *qa'vIn* (still 
going?) *wornagh* (wow, all that?!)*DItlhutlhtaH.* But this one really 
wouldn't make any difference if you conjoined them with *je:* the sense 
of sequence is not very strong.

But none of these strikes me as so simply unambiguous as the 
howl-crescendo. You have to work at interpreting them. Stringing along 
nouns isn't just a listed sequence; it's a single concept expressed in a 
sequence of related words. The concept isn't "sequence"; it's "thing 
that changes in this sequential way."

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171010/bd253b9e/attachment-0017.htm>