We have the verb {yong} meaning "get in". I can say {juH vIyong} without *having* to write {juHDaq vIyong}, since that would be redundant. It wouldn't be wrong. Just redundant. Suppose now, I want to say "I get out of the house", and suppose that I want to use {yongHa'}. Do I write {juH vIyongHa'} or {juHvo' jIyongHa'} ? I tend toward the {juHvo' jIyongHa'}, since {juH vIyongHa'} sounds like "I get out the house". But since I'm not sure, if someone could clarify this, it would be great. ~ gkkhkh
On 7/11/2019 7:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
We have the verb {yong} meaning "get in".
I can say {juH vIyong} without *having* to write {juHDaq vIyong}, since that would be redundant. It wouldn't be wrong. Just redundant.
Suppose now, I want to say "I get out of the house", and suppose that I want to use {yongHa'}.
Do I write {juH vIyongHa'} or {juHvo' jIyongHa'} ?
I tend toward the {juHvo' jIyongHa'}, since {juH vIyongHa'} sounds like "I get out the house".
But since I'm not sure, if someone could clarify this, it would be great.
You're assuming that *yong* is an inherently locative verb. It might be, but then again it might not be. But let's suppose that you've got everything right, and that you really do need to use *-Ha'.* The object of *yong* is the thing you get into, and this object doesn't change when you undo the verb. *juH vIyongHa'*/I undo-get in the house; I get out of the house after having gotten into it./ Although I can't claim that *juHvo' jIyongHa'* is wrong, I don't recommend it. This seems to me more like /Going from the house, I undo-get in something unspecified./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 7/11/2019 9:43 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
But let's suppose that you've got everything right, and that you really do need to use -Ha'.
I'm afraid I got somewhat confused here.
Wouldn't we need to use {-Ha'}, to express the "getting out of" ?
As for instance we would do, with {'el} and {'elHa'}.
There are synonyms; Voragh posted a lot of them. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 7/11/2019 10:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
There are synonyms; Voragh posted a lot of them
Do you mean, that in order to express the "getting out of", you'd advise choosing a synonym over the {yongHa'} ?
No, I simply meant that adding *-Ha'* is not automatically a given. Sometimes it's suitable; sometimes there are alternatives that might be better. I was trying to avoid anyone saying, "Why are you bothering with *-Ha'* when there's this perfectly good synonym?" -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
"Why are you bothering with -Ha' when there's this perfectly good synonym?"
I've thought of this possibility too, but I don't think there's a perfectly good synonym. I want to say "get out of a house". Not depart from it. Not leave it. The closest equivalent is {Haw'}, but as we discussed yesterday, it has the "flavor" of urgency. ~ kgkgkg
On 7/11/2019 10:30 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
"Why are you bothering with -Ha' when there's this perfectly good synonym?"
I've thought of this possibility too, but I don't think there's a perfectly good synonym.
I want to say "get out of a house". Not depart from it. Not leave it.
The closest equivalent is {Haw'}, but as we discussed yesterday, it has the "flavor" of urgency.
/Get out/ is synonymous with /depart/ and /leave./ Synonymous doesn't mean no difference. There are times when you could easily translate /get out/ with *mej* or *tlheD.* /I'm fed up with you! Get out of this room!/ *SoHmo' jIpuQ**. pa'vam yImej! * But as I said, there are times when using *-Ha'* is appropriate, and so I engaged with this question. I'm not telling you to use a synonym. I was mentioning synonyms to discard them so we could talk about *-Ha'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel answered this well, though I’d like to offer an interpretation more specific about the details of meaning of the word. He and I are both making educated guesses here, honestly giving it our best shot. This is a gut feeling: I don’t see {yong} as acting like {ghoS} as much as it acts like {vegh}. It’s not so much telling you WHERE a motion happens (like {ghoS} does) as it is what kind of action you are taking by moving from one place to another (like {vegh} does, or like {‘el} does). It relates to a kind of boundary between spaces (inside vs. outside). It seems like a synonym for {‘el}, and Klingon doesn’t really have a lot of synonyms, so one is drawn to try to distinguish why we’d have two different words here for the same action. So, I’m drawn to look for subtle differences in the English words “Enter” vs “Get in”. Mostly, I see that “get in” implies more of an explicit, visible container, as in, “We’re leaving. Get in the car,” or “It’s raining. Get in the house.” Contrast this to, “After hours on the road, we entered the city,” or “You are entering the Twilight Zone”. This difference has porous boundaries. “We got into the city last night at 9:00.” Does “get into” work exactly like “get in”? Perhaps not. So, likely there are areas one would “enter" that you could not "get in", and containers that you could either "get in" or “enter". Getting in seems less formal and perhaps a little more urgent. When you get in, the focus is on getting the last bit of you inside, so there’s nothing left outside. Entering has more to do with the leading edge penetrating the boundary. When a sword enters a torso, the whole sword doesn’t have to penetrate the boundary, but when you get in from the rain, all of you has to be where it won’t get wet. Similarly, entering a room focuses on the leading edge, while getting in focuses on the trailing edge. You enter by opening a door. You get in by closing the door behind you. Think about it. You are outside a room. You are told to enter. You open the door and stand in the doorway, looking around. You are then told to get in. You step the rest of the way into the room and close the door behind you. None of this conflicts with what SuStel said. I agree about {-Daq} making a noun the location of the action and not the object of the action. I’m just trying to add my spin on understanding the details of meaning of {yong} and why Maltz bothered to give us a word so similar to {‘el}. None of this is from Maltz or Okrand. I’m just suggesting a possible reason for the verbs being imperfect synonyms with a subtle difference. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 11, 2019, at 7:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
We have the verb {yong} meaning "get in".
I can say {juH vIyong} without *having* to write {juHDaq vIyong}, since that would be redundant. It wouldn't be wrong. Just redundant.
Suppose now, I want to say "I get out of the house", and suppose that I want to use {yongHa'}.
Do I write {juH vIyongHa'} or {juHvo' jIyongHa'} ?
I tend toward the {juHvo' jIyongHa'}, since {juH vIyongHa'} sounds like "I get out the house".
But since I'm not sure, if someone could clarify this, it would be great.
~ gkkhkh _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:58 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
None of this conflicts with what SuStel said. I agree about {-Daq} making a noun the location of the action and not the object of the action. I’m just trying to add my spin on understanding the details of meaning of {yong} and why Maltz bothered to give us a word so similar to {‘el}.
This page <http://www.english-to-go.com/English/sample_anna_grammar.cfm> suggests that the distinction in the English glosses is that "get in" implies difficulty or some sort of process involved, although I'm having trouble finding other sources phrasing it that way. We may need to ask Maltz for the precise difference, if any. (If only there were some upcoming event where someone could ask MO...) I suspect that the actual reason we have two similar words is a little more prosaic:
(Also, as I think I've mentioned in the past, one of the things I was thinking about when writing TKD was making it, sometimes, a parody of those language books that have only suggestions of pronunciations and dictionaries that have ambiguous meanings for words.)
https://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_160920.html Presenting glosses that are near-synonyms without explaining the actual differences would have been another way to make TKD more like a parody of a badly-written language book.
Of course, this ignores any difference between “get in” and “get into”. I don’t see these as universally interchangeable. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 11, 2019, at 12:01 PM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:58 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote: None of this conflicts with what SuStel said. I agree about {-Daq} making a noun the location of the action and not the object of the action. I’m just trying to add my spin on understanding the details of meaning of {yong} and why Maltz bothered to give us a word so similar to {‘el}.
This page <http://www.english-to-go.com/English/sample_anna_grammar.cfm> suggests that the distinction in the English glosses is that "get in" implies difficulty or some sort of process involved, although I'm having trouble finding other sources phrasing it that way. We may need to ask Maltz for the precise difference, if any. (If only there were some upcoming event where someone could ask MO...)
I suspect that the actual reason we have two similar words is a little more prosaic: (Also, as I think I've mentioned in the past, one of the things I was thinking about when writing TKD was making it, sometimes, a parody of those language books that have only suggestions of pronunciations and dictionaries that have ambiguous meanings for words.) https://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_160920.html <https://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_160920.html> Presenting glosses that are near-synonyms without explaining the actual differences would have been another way to make TKD more like a parody of a badly-written language book.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I wonder.. Could we say, that the verb {'el} includes the meaning of {yong}, in the sense, that where one could use {yong} he could certainly use {'el} instead ? ~ khjhjkk
If you ignore the idea that {‘el} refers to the action of the leading edge of the moving entity, while {yong} refers to the action of the trailing edge of the moving entity — an idea not confirmed by Maltz — then you may well be right. I used to work in the Musical Instrument Maker’s Shop in Colonial Williamsburg as the “interpreter”, telling people about the shop, answering questions, and generally managing the crowd while they were there. It was an air conditioned shop — a tiny room that as many as 18 people could crowd into. Summers are hot and muggy there. Leave the door open too long, and the shop ISN’T air conditioned. The Master of the shop and his apprentices would get grumpy if it got too hot, so part of my job was to move people into and out of the shop as quickly as possible in order to keep the door closed as much as possible. If the person checking tickets outside the door opened the door to let people in and they seemed distracted outside and were not using the time with the door open to come in to the room, I’d be inclined you call out, “Enter! Enter!” and people would start coming into the room. As the crowd meandered into the room, once the motion of people slowed as they fit themselves into the space, if there were people hanging out around the open door, but leaving the door open to continue to exchange air with the summer heat, I’d be inclined to yell, “Get in! Get in!” and the door would be closed. That is what I’m proposing as the primary difference between {‘el} and {yong}. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 11, 2019, at 12:44 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder..
Could we say, that the verb {'el} includes the meaning of {yong}, in the sense, that where one could use {yong} he could certainly use {'el} instead ?
~ khjhjkk _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 16:58, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Mostly, I see that “get in” implies more of an explicit, visible container, as in, “We’re leaving. Get in the car,” or “It’s raining. Get in the house.” Contrast this to, “After hours on the road, we entered the city,” or “You are entering the Twilight Zone”.
The interpretation that {yong} is for something transient, like a vehicle, whereas {'el} is for more stationary boundaries, is at least compatible with known canon, though we may just have insufficient information. I know of only one canon instance of {yong}, about riding a jitney: * {yIyong 'ej pa' yIQam!} "Get in and stand there!" (Conversational Klingon) Here are some canon instances of {'el}. There might be more that I've missed. * {Hevetlh wIghoSchugh, veH tIn wI'el maH'e'.} "That course will take us into the Barrier as well." (Star Trek V) * {HIq DaSammeH tach yI'el.} "To find ale, go into a bar." (TKW p.181) * {'elmeH chaw'} "entry pass" (By Any Other Name: An Evening of Shakespeare in Klingon) * {molor HoSghaj woQ / luDoQ / 'el chaH 'e' lupoQ} "In the name / Of Molor the Mighty, / Demanding to get in." (paq'batlh) * {vaj pa' SaH chaH / qamchIy lojmItmeyDaq / 'el chaH 'e' luqap} "So there they are, / At Qam-Chee's gates, / Demanding to get in." (paq'batlh) This one is from a deleted scene, but was written by Okrand: * {tlhIngan wo' Daq'a' bo'elpu'!} "You have entered the jurisdiction of the Klingon Empire." (Star Trek 2009, deleted scene) {'el} also occurs in Hamlet's famous soliquy. I won't post it since it's not canon. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin