[tlhIngan Hol] ngIq (WAS: vengDaq, vengmeyDaq je)

[De'vID]

On 6 September 2017 at 21:19, Brent Kesler
<brent.of.all.people at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the examples are ambiguous; I think {ngIq} is ambiguous. I
> think that because the examples are outright contradictory.

Let's imagine that a Klingon is learning Federation Standard. We tell
him that there's one word, "then", which means both {ngugh} and {ghIq}
(i.e., "at that time" and "subsequently").

We give him these "canon" examples:

"I was eating breakfast. It was then that I read the newspaper."
"I ate breakfast. Then I read the newspaper."

"The examples are not only ambiguous!" he exclaims, "They are outright
contradictory!"

> I was reading the {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} sentences as three sentences about a
> single move: "In a single move he removed their hearts, restored his honor,
> and won the battle". It looks like you're reading them as three sentences
> about three different moves: "In one move he removed their hearts. Then he
> made another move and restored his honor. Then he made yet another move and
> won the battle."
>
> Am I understanding you correctly?

HIvqa' ngIq veqlargh. You're right, I misread the example. It's
talking about a single move with a collection of effects. But that's
only tangential to my point: we have a single word in one language
which is two different words in another language. Instead of using two
words, that language uses context to distinguish the two meanings.
It's exactly analogous to the "then" situation with English. It's not
ambiguous, because the surrounding context clarifies which meaning is
intended.

vengmey DIHIv. ngIq veng wIQaw'ta'.
"We attacked the cities. Individually, we destroyed the cities; we
destroyed each one."

vengmey DIHIv. jeghbe' wa' veng neH. ngIq veng wIQaw'ta'.
"We attached the cities. One did not surrender. Individually, we
destroyed the city; we destroyed a single one."

-- 
De'vID