expressing "text" expressing "passage"
We have the {mu'tlhegh meS} for "paragraph". It just came to me, that perhaps we could say {mu'tlhegh meSmey mIr} "a chain of paragraphs", and/or {mu'tlhegh meSmey tlhegh} "a line of paragraphs" in order to express "text" /"passage". Perhaps we could even say {mu'tlhegh meSmey cho'} "a succession of paragraphs", or {mu'tlhegh meSmey tlhoQ} "a conglomeration of paragraphs". Although I'm not quite sure for the last two, since perhaps the {cho'} is to be used only for successions of emperors, chancellors, etc, and as far as the {tlhoQ} is concerned, if I said that I truly understand the meaning of the english "conglomeration" I'd be lying. And because I know what someone is perhaps ready to say.. No, "manuscript" isn't the same as "text" or "passage". At least in greek it isn't, and here is where the {ghIlth} "manuscript" choice goes out the window. Or is "out of the window"? Oh, well.. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On second thought, in all the above choices I'd lose the {-mey}. I like the {-mey}less versions more. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 10/10/2021 7:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
We have the {mu'tlhegh meS} for "paragraph".
It just came to me, that perhaps we could say {mu'tlhegh meSmey mIr} "a chain of paragraphs", and/or {mu'tlhegh meSmey tlhegh} "a line of paragraphs" in order to express "text" /"passage".
Perhaps we could even say {mu'tlhegh meSmey cho'} "a succession of paragraphs", or {mu'tlhegh meSmey tlhoQ} "a conglomeration of paragraphs".
Although I'm not quite sure for the last two, since perhaps the {cho'} is to be used only for successions of emperors, chancellors, etc, and as far as the {tlhoQ} is concerned, if I said that I truly understand the meaning of the english "conglomeration" I'd be lying.
And because I know what someone is perhaps ready to say.. No, "manuscript" isn't the same as "text" or "passage". At least in greek it isn't, and here is where the {ghIlth} "manuscript" choice goes out the window.
Or is "out of the window"? Oh, well..
In English, /manuscript/ can mean a handwritten text, as opposed to a typescript, or it can mean any text by an author prior to publication. I don't think we're told which meaning *ghItlh* has. Lacking a general word for /passage of text,/ I would look at more specific words for more specific situations. *mu'mey, mu'tlheghmey, paQDI'norgh, ghantoH, HIl'aD, lut, lut 'ay',* and so on. We usually say /out the window./ If you say /out of the window,/ it will sound a bit stilted, but not wrong. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
In English, manuscript can mean a handwritten text, as opposed to a typescript, or it can mean any text by an author prior to publication.
Interesting; I didn't know that the English "manuscript" can include too the "any text by an author prior to publication" meaning. Being influenced by Greek, I thought of the "manuscript" as a handwritten text on a paper, scroll, parchment, etc.. SuStel:
I don't think we're told which meaning ghItlh has.
I think that the noun {ghItlh} has the meaning of "handwritten text on a paper, scroll, parchment", because of the sentence {ghItlh vIghItlhta'bogh DalaD'a'?}. Since the verb {ghItlh} means "engrave, incise, mark (upon), write", then when this verb has the noun {ghItlh} as an object, then seemingly/apparently the noun {ghItlh} must be something physical (e.g. paper, scroll, parchment, etc..). I'd understand the noun {ghItlh} as something referring to the text, if the above Ca'Non sentence was instead {ghItlh vIqonta'bogh DalaD'a'?}. On the other hand though, one could say that in the {ghItlh vIghItlhta'bogh DalaD'a'?} the listener is asked to read the text, not the physical medium on which the text is written. So go figure.. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 10/12/2021 8:03 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
I think that the noun {ghItlh} has the meaning of "handwritten text on a paper, scroll, parchment", because of the sentence {ghItlh vIghItlhta'bogh DalaD'a'?}.
Since the verb {ghItlh} means "engrave, incise, mark (upon), write", then when this verb has the noun {ghItlh} as an object, then seemingly/apparently the noun {ghItlh} must be something physical (e.g. paper, scroll, parchment, etc..). I'd understand the noun {ghItlh} as something referring to the text, if the above Ca'Non sentence was instead {ghItlh vIqonta'bogh DalaD'a'?}.
Two things here. First, while the sentence *ghItlh vIghItlhta'bogh DalaD'a'* does suggest that the *ghItlh* being asked about is physical, that doesn't prove that every *ghItlh* must be physical. I agree that the verb and the noun being the same is strongly suggestive, but that isn't /proof./ We say we /write/ when we type into our computers, after all, and we call the results of these actions /documents./ I don't know how far the word *ghItlh* stretches. Second, we must remember that when *ghItlh vIghItlhta'bogh DalaD'a'* was written Okrand hadn't yet come up with the notion that *qon* was used for composition. (If he had, he left no evidence of this.) So we have to read the sentence with a little sensitivity to its intended meaning, and not jump too quickly to the conclusion that he was absolutely not talking about composition. By the later rule this sentence might be used for /Will you read my printout?/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel