<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/10/2017 12:00 PM, nIqolay Q
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsms-X0Qp2g14SyesZrtLBoa0zsh=T_WbpmhDeu=mfQ1g@mail.gmail.com">
<div>Just out of curiosity, what kinds of "noun series" modelled
along variations of <b>beyHom bey bey'a'</b> would also feel
right or wrong to you (and other Klingonists reading this)?<br>
</div>
<ul>
<li>Using a <b>-Hom/-0/-'a'</b> series in a non-direct-object
role, e.g.: <b>Qe' chu' luSuchtaH ghomHom ghom ghom'a'</b> <i>"Bigger
and bigger crowds visited the new restaurant; the new
restaurant drew ever-increasing crowds."</i></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Works for me. I don't think its position in the sentence has any
bearing on how it's interpreted.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsms-X0Qp2g14SyesZrtLBoa0zsh=T_WbpmhDeu=mfQ1g@mail.gmail.com">
<ul>
<li>Using a different set of suffixes that suggest some other
kind of spectrum, e.g.: <b>qa'qoq qa'Hey qa' qa'na' vIleghtaH</b>
<i>"I was dismissive of the idea at first but I am
increasingly certain that I'm seeing an actual spirit."</i>
(This is an awkward translation.)</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsms-X0Qp2g14SyesZrtLBoa0zsh=T_WbpmhDeu=mfQ1g@mail.gmail.com">
<ul>
<li>Not using the same base noun but with a series implied
anyway, e.g.: <b>jajlo' po pov tlhom puH DujDaj tI'taH </b><i>"He
worked on his car from dawn to dusk." </i>(This example
also uses a non-direct-object series, in this case a series of
timestamps.)</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Because the sequence is obvious, I could accept this. I would
expect this to be received something like "<b>jajlo' </b>(ok)<b>
po</b> (all morning, huh?) <b>pov</b> (wow, long time!) <b>tlhom</b>
(still going?!) <b>puH DujDaj tI'taH.</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsms-X0Qp2g14SyesZrtLBoa0zsh=T_WbpmhDeu=mfQ1g@mail.gmail.com">
<ul>
<li>Nouns that only imply a series in context: <b>'awje' qa'vIn
wornagh DItlhutlhtaH</b> <i>"We started with 'root beer',
then had coffee, and then we drank warnog."</i></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Same reaction as with the time stamps. <b>'awje'</b> (ok) <b>qa'vIn</b>
(still going?) <b>wornagh</b> (wow, all that?!)<b> DItlhutlhtaH.</b>
But this one really wouldn't make any difference if you conjoined
them with <b>je:</b> the sense of sequence is not very strong.<br>
</p>
<p>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."<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>