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

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 20:50, Steven Boozer <sboozer@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