[tlhIngan Hol] According to Matthew chapter 1 (quotations punctuated)

[Rhona Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' Hugh, jatlhpu':
> {wI'qIy turwI'Daq} makes it sound like you’re adding the text to the server that
> hosts the wiki and not necessarily to the wiki itself.

I tend to agree. As we see not just from qep'a' wejDIchDaq, but also from the classic example wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap (TKW p.209), -Daq is not so strict in its application that it invalidates a construction like wI'qIyDaq vIchelta' "I added it into the Wiki"; as Quvar notes, a virtual location like a wiki is no less a location. And since that's the case, unless the sense is that you specifically added it to the server and not the wiki, adding turwI' to the sentence adds nothing in terms of useful information, so it can safely be left out here. (Including it is not really wrong per se, but unless you're specifically talking about the server rather than the wiki, adding it sounds odd: not unlike going to a tach and asking for a baS HIvje' of bloodwine. Unless you have a particular reason for wanting a metal cup, it's extraneous information that isn't relevant to the discussion. For purely pragmatic reasons I think Grice's maxims of relevance and quantity, at least,  would hold for Klingons as well.)

(poD vay')

taH:
> So while I appreciate that you’re trying to follow a rule about limiting the
> use of {-Daq} to actual locations, I think you should be aware that going
> out of the way to follow that rule can have unintended consequences on
> how your words are understood.

jangpu' mayqel, jatlh:
> This is the most wrong and ridiculous reasoning I have ever read in
> the 3,5 years I'm in this list.

toH, nom chungpu' wanI'vetlh. o.O

Look, all Hugh is saying is nothing more than this: if wI'qIyDaq vIchelta' is wrong (as you claim) because -Daq must refer to a concrete physical location and can't refer to data in a virtual location, then the unavoidable implication is that -Daq must also refer to a concrete physical location elsewhere - such as in wI'qIy turwI'Daq vIchelta'. He's not saying that he believes either of those things is true. He's just saying that if you claim a particular meaning for the one, then for the sake of logical consistency, it will affect how you should interpret the other, or your argument falls apart. DaH Dayaj'a'?

taH:
> You're going to extremes to justify your initial opinion which was wrong.

As I said above, for my part I see no problem with Hugh's earlier statement that wI'qIyDaq alone is sufficient, in view of other canonical examples that indicate a virtual location is still quite happily conceptualised as a location by Klingons for the purposes of the local Type 5 suffixes.

taH:
> I'm dead certain, that if we asked 100 people, noone would understand
> that the words are added to the wiki server and not to the wiki.

In context they probably wouldn't. But the only thing that would allow them to do that would be context, which allows the intended meaning to be extracted from it. And in fact, if anything adding turwI' only adds ambiguity (by adding extraneous information) rather than removing from it.

ghItlhpu' je Hugh, jatlh:
> Now it’s possible that the studiers of the Klingon language were speaking
> in the building where the third great meeting occurred, but not during the
> meeting itself.

jangqa'pu' mayqel, jatlh:
> Okrand used the phrase you're referring to, and it is pretty clear
> what he meant. Again, you're twisting everything on your attempt to
> prove your point.

What Hugh is doing here is nothing more than trying to interpret the canon examples using the very criteria that you are arguing forbids wI'qIyDaq. Logicians call it a reductio ad absurdum; it's a technique for examining an argument by working through the logical consequences of the argument being true. (And if anything he's trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in the argument, admitting that the semantics of the qep'a' wejDIchDaq example are also interpretable within the narrow semantics you're arguing for.)

taH:
> Since you're relatively new in this language, I'll give you an advice.

HollIj wa'DIch 'oHbe'pu'mo' DIvI' Hol'e', mayqel, qeS qanob je jIH: nguqlaw' naDev mu'mey'e' Daqonpu'bogh, 'ej loQ tIchlaw'. 'eDjenna' SoH 'e' vIHonchu'. vaj 'eDjen yIDaQo'.

(poD vay')

taH:
> And as far as the {chel} is concerned.. You're trying to force on this
> verb, a very limited context, which Ca'Non so far hasn't ever done.

FWIW, the only example we appear to have of chel in a canonical text is this one:

HoSDaq ghob luchel quv ghajbogh tlhInganpu'lI'
"your Klingons with Honor add Integrity to Strength" (HolQeD 9:4, p.16)

Which, by the way, is another clean example showing that the interpretation of -Daq as referring only to a physical, real, concrete, tangible, atoms-and-energy object is somewhat too narrow, and if anything stands in support of Hugh's usage.

QeS 'utlh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190603/00e6f976/attachment-0002.htm>