Would a long body of text (be it a book, a letter, Grandma’s famous cookie recipe, etc.) be {nI'}, because it takes a long time to read it out loud, or {tIq}, because it occupies a long length of whatever medium it’s imprinted on? My instinct is {nI'}, but I’ve learned not to trust my instinct.
Without knowing the correct answer (if there is one to start with..), I would choose tIq. When I hear text, recipe, manuscript, etc, my mind goes to something which is writen somewhere, regardless someone has actually begun reading it or not (so that the duration would come to play). So, in my mind, long document means long in measure of space which it is occupying, and not time it requires to read/recite etc.. But.. jangmeH mu'tlhegh lugh vISovbejchugh, ngagh'eghjaj qeylIS ! f*** kahless if I know what is actually correct ! ~ changan qIj
Am 11.03.2019 um 09:45 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Without knowing the correct answer (if there is one to start with..), I would choose tIq.
I would also prefer tIq over nI', but it might certainly be possible there's another word for that. The word {tIq} makes me think of something that is somehow longer than wide, such as a rope or a stick. When you have a text and you would write the lines next to each other without making a line break, then it will be a "long" text. But i'm not sure one would say that the bible, as an example, is a {lut tIq}. In this case, also remember the quite new word {qargh} which is used to describe a "thick book". (but still does not answer the question of a "long text"). -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 09:52, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 11.03.2019 um 09:45 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Without knowing the correct answer (if there is one to start with..), I would choose tIq.
I would also prefer tIq over nI', but it might certainly be possible there's another word for that. The word {tIq} makes me think of something that is somehow longer than wide, such as a rope or a stick.
I think it depends on the specific text. For things which are transcribed speech, like {bom mu'} or {SoQ ghItlh} or even {lut}, I would use {nI'}. The word {tIq} seems to describe something physically larger in one dimension than others. If you told me {tIq paq}, I'd imagine a book with the dimensions of one of those wine list booklets from a fancy restaurant. For a {tetlh} or {Qumran}, {tIq} might be appropriate. (If you use {tIq} for a recipe, it might get confused with the body part.) -- De'vID
On Mar 11, 2019, at 04:21, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
For a {tetlh} or {Qumran}, {tIq} might be appropriate.
Hmm. I was mainly thinking of transcribed speech or prose written in a very speech-like style. (I guess a recipe isn’t necessarily that; I was just being a little silly. But maybe Grandma has a particular style when it comes to writing down recipes.) I hadn’t really thought of {tetlh}. I wonder if {tIn} would work for a {tetlh}. Can {tIn} be used for things that are large without being physically large? I agree that {paq tIq} sounds like a book with uneven physical dimensions.
On Mar 11, 2019, at 03:52, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
But i'm not sure one would say that the bible, as an example, is a {lut tIq}.
Well, it’s a {lut tIQ}.
In this case, also remember the quite new word {qargh} which is used to describe a "thick book".
Ooh, that’s a useful word. I agree that it doesn’t generalize, but I think I missed that one when it was revealed, or saw it and then forgot it.
paq’a’ ‘oH. qargh paq. tlhoy lut lengbogh ‘oH SoSnI’ nav QIn’e’. A verbal speech can be {nI’}, but written words escape the experiential element of time. They take time to write and time to read, but the words themselves are frozen in time while they remain readable. That’s the whole point of writing words. That’s the only reason Deaf people learn English. American Sign Language (ASL) doesn’t have a written language of its own. Signed English (perversions of ASL invented to encode English into gestures) takes too long to communicate, and ignores the spacial advantages of expressive capacity in visual space of signing, which is why Deaf people hate Signed English. It’s also why they never developed a written language for ASL. Writing is not 3-D. Signing is. Spoken language is not 3-D. Signing is. ASL has one word for “give/take” with the direction of the sign telling you which word it represents. You give someone directions to the bathroom or to the bus station by building a mimed, 3-D map, starting with a commonly known landmark, with a set of half a dozen hand shapes to represent the landmarks and the relationships between them. Time and distance gestures have facial expression modifiers to give a sense of scale. My point is that words that describe physical or temporal dimension apply to the medium, not to the symbolic content. For the quantity of symbolic content, I’d use the suffixes {-‘a’} and {-Hom}, though they primarily apply to significance, as opposed to quantity of words. If you had a digital recording of an insignificant speech with many words, it would probably be {mu’mey law’ ghajbogh SoQHom’e'}. The Gettysburg Address would be {mu’mey puS ghajbogh SoQ’a’’e'} My cousin was in charge of the field repair manual for the M1 tank. The manual was on microfiche. It wasn’t very big, though the reader took up some space in the tank. A general wanted the manual to be on paper, until it was pointed out that, printed on 8.5”x11” newsprint-thin paper, the manual would be 18’ thick. Many words. Many pictures. And it’s a reference manual. NOBODY would read the whole thing. But on microfiche it was quite small. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 11, 2019, at 7:49 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 11, 2019, at 04:21, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com <mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>> wrote:
For a {tetlh} or {Qumran}, {tIq} might be appropriate.
Hmm. I was mainly thinking of transcribed speech or prose written in a very speech-like style. (I guess a recipe isn’t necessarily that; I was just being a little silly. But maybe Grandma has a particular style when it comes to writing down recipes.) I hadn’t really thought of {tetlh}. I wonder if {tIn} would work for a {tetlh}. Can {tIn} be used for things that are large without being physically large?
I agree that {paq tIq} sounds like a book with uneven physical dimensions.
On Mar 11, 2019, at 03:52, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de <mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote:
But i'm not sure one would say that the bible, as an example, is a {lut tIq}.
Well, it’s a {lut tIQ}.
In this case, also remember the quite new word {qargh} which is used to describe a "thick book".
Ooh, that’s a useful word. I agree that it doesn’t generalize, but I think I missed that one when it was revealed, or saw it and then forgot it. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
And I would not argue at all. I agree much more than you can imagine. But that gets into the philosophical realm. I believe that Relativity’s “SpaceTime” is actually “Motion” and that Existence depends upon Motion. And since this is not about the Klingon language I’m going to have to change to Klingon in order to continue it on this list (which may prove limiting). nuq ‘oH qa’vIn HIvje’wIj’e’? tera’ oHpu’. vIHDI’ tera’na' vIH HIvje’Hey. tlhanlu’DI’ tera’vo’ chevlu’. DabqI’ moj. jaS vIHlaH tera’, DabqI’vam je. vIHDI’ DabqI’na’ vIH HIvje’law’. HIvje’ tu’qom chenmoHta' vay' ghopDu’. ‘op DabqI’ teq ghopDu’vam. jaS vIHlaH HIvje’ DabqI’, DabqI’’e' teqlu’pu’bogh ghopDu’ je. vIHDI’ tu’qomvamna’ vIH HIvje’law’. letmoH qul ‘ej ‘IHmoH. DaH HIvje’na' moj. vIHDI’ HIvje’vam, vIH wa’ Doch. HIvje’ ‘oHtaH Dochvam’e’. HIvje’vamDaq qa’vIn vIqang. qa’vIn ngaStaHvIS HIvje’vam, wa’Doch ‘oHtaH. vIHDI’ HIvje’, vIH qa’vIn. qa’vIn vItlhutlhDI’ jIH moj qa’vIn ‘ej HIvje’ mojHa’ qa’vIn. jaS vIH HIvje’ qa’vIn je. jIvIHDI’ vIH qa’vIn. wa’ nuv wImoj jIH, qa’vIn je. HIvje’ vIchaghchugh, ‘oHHa’ HIvje’. ‘ay’mey moj. jaS vIH ‘ay’meyvam. wa’ Doch luchaHbe’. wanI'mey chaH Hoch Doch. chaq ngaj. chaq nI’. reH ‘oHtaH pagh. [All things have a finite duration, except for the infinitely changing Universes.] vIH Hoch. vIHbe’ pagh. qatlh chImlaw' HeySel joj logh? vIHbe’law’. chaq HeySel joj logh Do law’ tamghay Do puS. gho’Do’’e’ ‘u’ ‘oHtaH. [For purposes of the list, you can ignore the rest of this message.] ramchu’. Perhaps the “empty” space between atoms is full of mass moving faster than the speed of light, with infinite momentum, moving in streams tangential to our atoms, in opposite pairs on either side of each atom, enforcing the extreme distance between our atoms, and enforcing Critical Mass, shearing off the outer shell of heavy metals, releasing enormous energy while creating more tolerable, smaller atomic masses into which the intolerable mass decays, mostly near the center of the physical object made of the offending critical mass, which explains the math of half-life. Perhaps these streams move in vast elliptical orbits (the most common pattern of motion in the observable Universe on all scales of size), and perhaps multiple systems of these streams (multiple Universes) share focal points for these orbits, creating areas where the density of streams is less because an atom can be participating in multiple Universes in those locations. With less density of streams, higher masses could be tolerable — changing the threshold for Critical Mass so that atoms could become much denser, explaining Black Holes, and why they don’t suck in all mass — the higher Critical Mass is defined by location relative to the common participant Universes at that focal point. Also, it explains Gravity as a resultant force of inward pressure from all directions except “down”, where the streams are narrowed by the resistance of having passed through all the mass of the planet below you. Less pressure from below gives you a net accelerating force downward. And perhaps the streams are the medium for light, explaining how a wave form can be carried by a “vacuum”, without the need to pretend like it’s a particle. And the spacing of the streams in the array would explain Quantum Physics, since at the smallest scale of existence, there is a watershed energy threshold required to cross a stream during the brief time that there is no mass passing along it, breaking light and other energies into Quanta. This is what I think about when I’m not thinking about the Klingon language, playing pool, building metal models, learning ASL, playing in an Irish band, thinking about airplanes and what makes them fly, helping people with their computers, amplifying live bands and callers for contra dancers, calling contra dances, or being social with family, etc. It’s part of my sound track when I’m going off to sleep or waking up. Likely, there are other over-thinkers here. I don’t assume I’m unique. It’s just that this kind of stuff never comes up in normal conversations, so I can never be sure how strange or normal this kind of thinking is within any given population. What I don’t understand is boredom. With so much to think about, how can anyone be bored? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 11, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 11, 2019, at 08:31, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Writing is not 3-D. Signing is. Spoken language is not 3-D. Signing is.
I’d argue that signing is actually 4-D. It encodes information as movements (which require time) across all three spatial dimensions. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mar 11, 2019, at 11:28, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
And I would not argue at all. I agree much more than you can imagine.
I meant argue purely in a rhetorical sense. No implication of disagreement was intended. In fact, I rather expected you’d most likely agree. Dajbej mu'mey DaghItlhta'bogh 'ach QaghHomHey puS vItu'. QaghHommeyna' bIHchugh neH vaj qay'be', qayajlaHchu' QaghHomHey vIqImHa'chugh, 'ach chIch QaghmeyHeyvam DaghItlhta'chugh meqlIj vIyaj vIneH. QaghHommeyna' bIHbe'chugh, bIH HIQIj.
vIHDI’ DabqI’na’ vIH HIvje’law’.
HIvje'Hey DaHech'a'? DIp mojaq 'oHbe' -law''e'.
wa’ Doch luchaHbe’.
nuq 'oS wot “chaH”? mu'ghomDaq vISamlaHbe'. DIp qa'meH mu' “chaH” DaHechchugh, moHaq ghajlaHbe' mu' Seghvam 'e' vIHar.
wanI'mey chaH Hoch Doch.
qatlh “chaH” bIjatlh 'ej “bIH” qa'law'? qatlh Dachlaw' “-'e'”? QaghHommeyHeylIjmo' neH qaghel. (reH “QaghHommeyHeylIjmo'” jIjatlhmeH meq vIneHtaH, mubelmoHmo' mu'vetlh Dogh.)
Yep. I’m rusty. This is why I’m writing. {-Hey}/{-law’}. [sigh] It’s coming back to me, but it needs work to get that penetrating oil into those stiff, noisy hinges… And {chaH} instead of {bIH} is worse. I actually thought {bIH} and “corrected” myself. I blame sleep deprivation. I hate Daylight Savings Time, especially when it stops. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 11, 2019, at 1:23 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 11, 2019, at 11:28, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
And I would not argue at all. I agree much more than you can imagine.
I meant argue purely in a rhetorical sense. No implication of disagreement was intended. In fact, I rather expected you’d most likely agree.
Dajbej mu'mey DaghItlhta'bogh 'ach QaghHomHey puS vItu'. QaghHommeyna' bIHchugh neH vaj qay'be', qayajlaHchu' QaghHomHey vIqImHa'chugh, 'ach chIch QaghmeyHeyvam DaghItlhta'chugh meqlIj vIyaj vIneH. QaghHommeyna' bIHbe'chugh, bIH HIQIj.
vIHDI’ DabqI’na’ vIH HIvje’law’.
HIvje'Hey DaHech'a'? DIp mojaq 'oHbe' -law''e'.
wa’ Doch luchaHbe’.
nuq 'oS wot “chaH”? mu'ghomDaq vISamlaHbe'. DIp qa'meH mu' “chaH” DaHechchugh, moHaq ghajlaHbe' mu' Seghvam 'e' vIHar.
wanI'mey chaH Hoch Doch.
qatlh “chaH” bIjatlh 'ej “bIH” qa'law'? qatlh Dachlaw' “-'e'”?
QaghHommeyHeylIjmo' neH qaghel. (reH “QaghHommeyHeylIjmo'” jIjatlhmeH meq vIneHtaH, mubelmoHmo' mu'vetlh Dogh.) _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 03:35, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
Would a long body of text (be it a book, a letter, Grandma’s famous cookie recipe, etc.) be {nI'}, because it takes a long time to read it out loud, or {tIq}, because it occupies a long length of whatever medium it’s imprinted on?
My instinct is {nI'}, but I’ve learned not to trust my instinct.
pIQHa'. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Will Martin