[tlhIngan Hol] meaning of {DIn} (was Re: Is DIn the opposite of qa'rI' ?)

[De'vID]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 09:30, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 20:50, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>> To get the discussion started...
>>
>> (HQ 12.2:7-8):  For the end of a longish enclosed space that one is
>> typically inside of or experiences from the inside, such as a corridor,
>> tunnel, or conduit (say, a Jeffries tube or a branch of the sewers of
>> Paris), a different word is used: {qa'rI'}.  This is the only word; it's
>> used for both (or all) ends.  The open entryway leading into such a space
>> is called a {Din}.  If there's a door there, it's referred to by the usual
>> word for door, {lojmIt}.
>
>
How do people understand the antecedents of "there" and "it" in the last
sentence? "If there's a door [[there]], [[it]]'s referred to by the usual
word for door, {lojmIt}."

The KLI New Klingon Words list says this:
> {DIn} n. Open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, Jeffries tube,
> branch of sewer) [This is the open entryway of any enclosed space longer
> than wide in which people might find themselves. If there is a door that
> closes, this is not a {DIn}. It is merely a {lojmIt}.]
>
> This seems to be an interpretation which has added something to the
> original. In the original, it just says "a door", not "a door that closes".
>

Having re-read the original definition of {DIn} given in HolQeD 12.2, I'm
not convinced that the description given in the KLI New Words List is
correct.

Here is how I read the sentence:
"If there's a door there [at the open entryway, i.e., the {DIn}], it [the
door]'s referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}."

That is, the open entryway leading into a corridor or tunnel is called a
{DIn} (regardless of whether there's a door or not), and if there's a door,
the door is called by the usual word {lojmIt} (unlike in English, where
there are special words like "hatch" or "gate"). That is, the fact of a
door being at the entryway does not make it a "closed" entryway. It still
counts as "open" because it's how you access the corridor or tunnel. If
there's a tunnel which leads to a dead end, you still refer to the end
which isn't a dead end as the "open" entryway, even if there's a door there.

The person who wrote up the description in the KLI New Words List
apparently read it differently in this way:
"If there's a door there [at the end of the longish enclosed space, i.e.,
the {qa'rI'}], it [the entryway]'s referred to by the usual word for door,
{lojmIt}."

The antecedent for "it" has to be taken to be "the entryway" (rather than
"the door") to arrive at the interpretation that the entryway is *not* a
{DIn}, but "merely a {lojmIt}". But the previous sentence says "the open
entryway", so if "it" refers to that, it still doesn't fit the
interpretation. Also, taking "there" to refer to the {qa'rI'}, rather than
the {DIn} in the immediately previously sentence, seems like reaching back
too far.

What do other people think? Or is there additional evidence that supports
the interpretation given in the New Words List?

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190403/621f642b/attachment.htm>