On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Some examples of {ngIq} for comparison:
ngIq nuv luHoH they killed the warriors one by one. ('u'-OPERA)
yerchajvo' Haw' qamchIynganpu' ngIq nuv luHoH The people of Qam-Chee, they fled their territory, and were killed one by one (PB)
nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return (PB)
ngIq raQvaD cha'maH vagh QaS yInob For each outpost pay 25 forces. (MKE)
ngIq gholvaD vaghmaH QaS yInob Pay each player 50 forces. (MKE)
ngIq gholvo' wa'maH QaS yItlhap Collect 10 forces from every player. (MKE)
BTW notice the absence of {-taH} or {-qa'} on the verbs.
In these examples, "each" would make a good gloss for {ngIq}. But there are other examples that don't fit that idea, also from paq'batlh. ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may' In one single move, he removed the hearts In one single move, he restored his honor In one single move, the battle was won That makes the meaning of {ngIq} almost always ambiguous. Why does {ngIq nuv luHoH} mean "They kill each person" instead of "They kill a single person"? Why does {nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI'} mean "one by one Molor's scouts return" instead of "Molor's single scout returned alone"? Why does {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} mean "In a single move" instead of "With each move"? I don't like that ambiguity, so I avoid {ngIq}. bI'reng
Some time, a long time ago, in another thread I had asked more or less exactly the same questions. Many replied, many things were said, no useful results were made, no light was shed on this matter, and finally, after we got even more confused than we were at the beginning of that thread, we agreed that since a lot of information with regards to the grammar of {ngIq} is still unknown, it is essentially useless. qunnoq On Sep 6, 2017 18:21, "Brent Kesler" <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Some examples of {ngIq} for comparison:
ngIq nuv luHoH they killed the warriors one by one. ('u'-OPERA)
yerchajvo' Haw' qamchIynganpu' ngIq nuv luHoH The people of Qam-Chee, they fled their territory, and were killed one by one (PB)
nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return (PB)
ngIq raQvaD cha'maH vagh QaS yInob For each outpost pay 25 forces. (MKE)
ngIq gholvaD vaghmaH QaS yInob Pay each player 50 forces. (MKE)
ngIq gholvo' wa'maH QaS yItlhap Collect 10 forces from every player. (MKE)
BTW notice the absence of {-taH} or {-qa'} on the verbs.
In these examples, "each" would make a good gloss for {ngIq}. But there are other examples that don't fit that idea, also from paq'batlh.
ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may'
In one single move, he removed the hearts In one single move, he restored his honor In one single move, the battle was won
That makes the meaning of {ngIq} almost always ambiguous.
Why does {ngIq nuv luHoH} mean "They kill each person" instead of "They kill a single person"?
Why does {nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI'} mean "one by one Molor's scouts return" instead of "Molor's single scout returned alone"?
Why does {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} mean "In a single move" instead of "With each move"?
I don't like that ambiguity, so I avoid {ngIq}.
bI'reng
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sep 6, 2017 19:51, "Brent Kesler" <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Some examples of {ngIq} for comparison:
ngIq nuv luHoH they killed the warriors one by one. ('u'-OPERA)
yerchajvo' Haw' qamchIynganpu' ngIq nuv luHoH The people of Qam-Chee, they fled their territory, and were killed one by one (PB)
nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return (PB)
ngIq raQvaD cha'maH vagh QaS yInob For each outpost pay 25 forces. (MKE)
ngIq gholvaD vaghmaH QaS yInob Pay each player 50 forces. (MKE)
ngIq gholvo' wa'maH QaS yItlhap Collect 10 forces from every player. (MKE)
BTW notice the absence of {-taH} or {-qa'} on the verbs.
In these examples, "each" would make a good gloss for {ngIq}. But there are other examples that don't fit that idea, also from paq'batlh. I think the problem here is that you're trying to map {ngIq} into a single English word or concept. ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may' In one single move, he removed the hearts In one single move, he restored his honor In one single move, the battle was won That makes the meaning of {ngIq} almost always ambiguous. I disagree. It's fairly clear to me why the English translations are what they are. There may be ambiguity in that we don't fully know how to extend the use of {ngIq} *beyond* the examples, but I don't think the examples taken together are ambiguous. Why does {ngIq nuv luHoH} mean "They kill each person" instead of "They kill a single person"? Because {ngIq} always deals with a collection of things. If it meant "They kill a single person", what happens to the others? Why does {nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI'} mean "one by one Molor's scouts return" instead of "Molor's single scout returned alone"? Same. Why does {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} mean "In a single move" instead of "With each move"? It means something like "with one move out of a collection of moves". The surrounding context makes it clear the translation should be "in a single move" rather than "in each move". I don't like that ambiguity, so I avoid {ngIq}. Based on the canon examples, if you make a single statement with {ngIq veng}, it means "in each city (out of a collection of cities)". If you make a series of (structurally identical) statements with {ngIq veng}, you're explicitly listing what's done "in a single city" (going through each city in the collection). The ambiguity is in what happens if you use it in another way (e.g., how similar do the list of sentences have to be for the "single one" meaning?). -- De'vID
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Some time, a long time ago, in another thread I had asked more or less exactly the same questions.
Many replied, many things were said, no useful results were made, no light was shed on this matter, and finally, after we got even more confused than we were at the beginning of that thread, we agreed that since a lot of information with regards to the grammar of {ngIq} is still unknown, it is essentially useless.
I had a felling that would be the case. I'll have to go back and read that thread, see if it clears things up for me. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:22 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
That makes the meaning of {ngIq} almost always ambiguous.
I disagree. It's fairly clear to me why the English translations are what they are. There may be ambiguity in that we don't fully know how to extend the use of {ngIq} *beyond* the examples, but I don't think the examples taken together are ambiguous.
I don't think the examples are ambiguous; I think {ngIq} is ambiguous. I think that because the examples are outright *contradictory*. Why does {ngIq nuv luHoH} mean "They kill each person" instead of "They
kill a single person"?
Because {ngIq} always deals with a collection of things. If it meant "They kill a single person", what happens to the others?
Why does {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} mean "In a single move" instead of "With each move"?
It means something like "with one move out of a collection of moves". The surrounding context makes it clear the translation should be "in a single move" rather than "in each move".
This is why I think the examples contradict each other. If it meant "He uses a single move", what happens to the other moves in that collection? Based on the canon examples, if you make a single statement with {ngIq
veng}, it means "in each city (out of a collection of cities)". If you make a series of (structurally identical) statements with {ngIq veng}, you're explicitly listing what's done "in a single city" (going through each city in the collection). The ambiguity is in what happens if you use it in another way (e.g., how similar do the list of sentences have to be for the "single one" meaning?).
I was reading the {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} sentences as three sentences about a single move: "In a single move he removed their hearts, restored his honor, and won the battle". It looks like you're reading them as three sentences about three different moves: "In one move he removed their hearts. Then he made another move and restored his honor. Then he made yet another move and won the battle." Am I understanding you correctly? On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:50 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Sep 6, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
Why does {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} mean "In a single move" instead of "With
each move"?
It doesn't "mean" that. It can be *translated* that way in the passage because of the context given along with it.
But {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} does mean *something*, right? Maybe it can't mean something on its own; maybe it needs some other sentence to complete the idea, the same way {A Q law'} needs {B Q puS}. Even so, I argue that no matter the context, {ngIq} will always be ambiguous. It will never be clear whether it means "one thing out of a collection of things" or "every item in a collection taken one by one". Like I said, I don't have the full context of paq'batlh available to me, but we can do a simple experiment: 1. Take one of the canon {ngIq} sentences. 2. Come up with some context to make it obvious that {ngIq} means "all of them, one by one". 3. Come up with some different context to make it obvious that {ngIq} means "just one thing out of a collection of things". I say that's impossible, unless the context pretty much defines {ngIq} for you. bI'reng
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
Like I said, I don't have the full context of paq'batlh available to me, but we can do a simple experiment: Take one of the canon {ngIq} sentences. Come up with some context to make it obvious that {ngIq} means "all of them, one by one". Come up with some different context to make it obvious that {ngIq} means "just one thing out of a collection of things".
nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' By itself, it is ambiguous. Such is often the case with sentences plucked from their surroundings. The context in the paq'batlh is that of multiple scouts: joqwI''e' cha'bogh qeylIS luDel 'e' ra' molor "He asks them which banner Kahless marches under." Even if you didn't know that several got sent earlier, {lu-} in {luDel} makes it clear that Molor's scouts are not a single person. Obviously it was more than one scout returning, each alone: nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' "One by one Molor's scouts return." Consider if the context were instead something like this: Heghpu' HochHom ghoqwI'. ratlh wa' neH. ghaH po' law' Hoch ghaH puS. "All the scouts are dead save one, the most skilled of all." That would make it explicit that only the single scout made it back: nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' "Molor's sole scout returns alone."
I say that's impossible, unless the context pretty much defines {ngIq} for you.
You did ask for that context, so you don't have a reason to complain if it is provided. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
But {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} does mean something, right?
Sure it means something. Knowing the context of the line, I interpret it as "he used an individual fighting technique." With other context, it could be more like "he used individual techniques in succession." {ngIq} always means something like "individual" or "specific" or maybe "separate", with the idea of sequence being appropriate in the translation if there are multiple things under consideration. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 6 September 2017 at 21:19, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think the examples are ambiguous; I think {ngIq} is ambiguous. I think that because the examples are outright contradictory.
Let's imagine that a Klingon is learning Federation Standard. We tell him that there's one word, "then", which means both {ngugh} and {ghIq} (i.e., "at that time" and "subsequently"). We give him these "canon" examples: "I was eating breakfast. It was then that I read the newspaper." "I ate breakfast. Then I read the newspaper." "The examples are not only ambiguous!" he exclaims, "They are outright contradictory!"
I was reading the {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} sentences as three sentences about a single move: "In a single move he removed their hearts, restored his honor, and won the battle". It looks like you're reading them as three sentences about three different moves: "In one move he removed their hearts. Then he made another move and restored his honor. Then he made yet another move and won the battle."
Am I understanding you correctly?
HIvqa' ngIq veqlargh. You're right, I misread the example. It's talking about a single move with a collection of effects. But that's only tangential to my point: we have a single word in one language which is two different words in another language. Instead of using two words, that language uses context to distinguish the two meanings. It's exactly analogous to the "then" situation with English. It's not ambiguous, because the surrounding context clarifies which meaning is intended. vengmey DIHIv. ngIq veng wIQaw'ta'. "We attacked the cities. Individually, we destroyed the cities; we destroyed each one." vengmey DIHIv. jeghbe' wa' veng neH. ngIq veng wIQaw'ta'. "We attached the cities. One did not surrender. Individually, we destroyed the city; we destroyed a single one." -- De'vID
On Sep 6, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
Why does {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} mean "In a single move" instead of "With each move"?
It doesn't "mean" that. It can be *translated* that way in the passage because of the context given along with it. Only one action is being described. To say "each of that one action, taken one at a time" would be extremely strange in English. It is apparent to me that {ngIq Doch}, when {Doch} is a single thing, emphasizes the singularity of that thing. -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (4)
-
Brent Kesler -
De'vID -
ghunchu'wI' 'utlh -
mayqel qunenoS