<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/27/2016 11:36 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABSTb1driX_i1eT1aKEkDVc+9dbGaF-eDa-SfWxh9gyA-D8jpQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><span>jatlh SuStel<br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<p style="margin-left:40px"><b>weq</b> doesn't mean <i>hit
an object which just happens to be a percussion
instrument, whether or not the hitting is intended to
make music.</i> If a car were to ram into a drum, that
would not be <b>weq,</b> but it certainly would be a kind
of hit.</p>
<div style="margin-left:40px"> </div>
<p style="margin-left:40px">If you're rhythmically slapping
your knees, or even just once when timed for audible
effect, that's <b>weq.</b> If you just happen to hit your
knees once at random, that's not <b>weq.</b></p>
<p>I agree with you totally on what type of action
constitutes {weq}. But you're correcting me for something
I didn't say. I just pointed out the assumptions implicit
in your reasoning, namely (1) the disambiguator limits the
object of {weq} to instruments, and (2) Klingons consider
the knees to be instruments when used in a like manner to
drums. These strike me as the sort of literal thinking
that is so useful in computer science, and the second
purports to know what Klingons would think. jaS jIQub.
SorHa' tlhIngan net Sov. <qIvDu' weq> jatlhtaHvIS
tlhIngan, chaq loQ SorHa'.<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm not saying that KLINGONS consider knees slapped to make music
to be percussion instruments, I'm telling you that they ARE
percussion instruments. There's no cultural or subjective
evaluation here.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABSTb1driX_i1eT1aKEkDVc+9dbGaF-eDa-SfWxh9gyA-D8jpQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<p>jIjatlh</p>
<p style="margin-left:40px">There's no evidence in
Star Trek of Klingon lawns. Even among humans, it's
something of a local fad. Klingons would probably
find lawn-keeping to be bizarre behavior. In that
case, they might well speak metaphorically (and
mockingly) of giving the grass field a haircut.</p>
<p>jatlh SuStel</p>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<p style="margin-left:40px">You're playing the "a Klingon
would" game again.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p>
</div>
Many humans and possibly all aliens would consider it bizarre
behavior, but I did say "probably" and "might well." How much
subjunctive padding do you require?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Infinite. Speculation on whether Klingons have lawns is one
thing; speculation on Klingon grammar based on speculation about
Klingon whether Klingons have lawns is quite another. Let's draw
conclusions based on canon and linguistics, not our completely
baseless estimate of Klingon horticultural interest. We know
precisely two things: there is a grass-like Klingon plant called <b>magh,</b>
and Klingons—or at least Maltz—have a phrase for<i> </i>a field
of the stuff<i>:</i> <b>magh yotlh.</b></p>
<p>Does <b>magh</b> grow as tall as grass? We don't know. Do
Klingons ever cultivate it for any reason whatsoever? We don't
know. Do Klingons ever have to maintain it or remove it? We don't
know. Do Klingons have opinions about all the lawns they've seen
on Human planets or in pictures? We don't know.</p>
<p>So to declare that Klingons "probably" find the idea of lawn
maintenance bizarre is based on a whole lot of we-don't-knows, as
is the idea of using the verb for barbering to refer to cutting <b>magh</b>
short.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>