if we are talking about 10 species of aliens, all capable of speech, then do we say {Hoch mutpu' vISov} or {Hoch mutmey vISov} ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 12/29/2016 9:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
if we are talking about 10 species of aliens, all capable of speech, then do we say {Hoch mutpu' vISov} or {Hoch mutmey vISov} ?
A *mut* is not a thing capable of using language. Its members are, but it is not. It is an abstraction. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
*A mut is not a thing capable of using language. Its members are, but it is not. It is an abstraction.*
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Metaphorically, we treat groups as possessing the attributes of language users all the time. The Borg Collective express outrage at latest Star Trek film. Barbers Union presses for more Bolians in new Trek series. Readers of Schoen's fiction ask if elephants can really talk. Translate any of the above or similar statements into Klingon and the group is clearly understood to be made up of language users and no one would blink twice at the figurative use of extending that attribute to the group. -- Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen :: author :: publisher :: psychologist :: hypnotist :: klingonist :::: Campbell, Hugo, Nebula, & WSFS Award nominee ::::: Cóyotl Award winner :::: www.lawrencemschoen.com ::: www.papergolem.com ::: www.hypnosis4writers.com
On 29 December 2016 at 16:05, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
*A mut is not a thing capable of using language. Its members are, but it is not. It is an abstraction.*
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Metaphorically, we treat groups as possessing the attributes of language users all the time.
In English. Do we do that in Klingon?
The Borg Collective express outrage at latest Star Trek film.
Barbers Union presses for more Bolians in new Trek series.
Readers of Schoen's fiction ask if elephants can really talk.
Translate any of the above or similar statements into Klingon and the group is clearly understood to be made up of language users and no one would blink twice at the figurative use of extending that attribute to the group.
In the case of something like "readers", they're clearly {laDwI'pu'} and it's not just metaphorical. They're literally beings capable of language. But for words like {DIvI'} or {tuq} or {mut}, the plural should clearly use {-mey}, even if they're collections of things which are capable of language. -- De'vID
On 12/29/2016 10:13 AM, De'vID wrote:
On 29 December 2016 at 16:05, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com <mailto:klingonguy@gmail.com>> wrote:
Readers of Schoen's fiction ask if elephants can really talk.
Translate any of the above or similar statements into Klingon and the group is clearly understood to be made up of language users and no one would blink twice at the figurative use of extending that attribute to the group.
In the case of something like "readers", they're clearly {laDwI'pu'} and it's not just metaphorical. They're literally beings capable of language.
Klingon has a few interesting cases where English uses a group-word while Klingon just uses a plural word. The one that occurs to me immediately is *mebpa'mey* /hotel./ Grammatically in Klingon, this is just the plural of the word *mebpa',* and is not a separate group-word. You could not, for instance, call a major hotel a **mebpa'mey'a'.* You could, however, say *mebpa'mey qach'a'* /great building of guest-rooms./ With the extra information you could even leave off the now-unneeded plural suffix, for *mebpa' qach'a'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
voragh:
{tuqmeyraj} not *{tuqpu’ra’} – two such suffixes (a “twofer”)
thank you voragh for sharing these canon examples. but what is a "twofer" ? qunnoH jan puqloD On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:33 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/29/2016 10:13 AM, De'vID wrote:
On 29 December 2016 at 16:05, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Readers of Schoen's fiction ask if elephants can really talk.
Translate any of the above or similar statements into Klingon and the group is clearly understood to be made up of language users and no one would blink twice at the figurative use of extending that attribute to the group.
In the case of something like "readers", they're clearly {laDwI'pu'} and it's not just metaphorical. They're literally beings capable of language.
Klingon has a few interesting cases where English uses a group-word while Klingon just uses a plural word. The one that occurs to me immediately is mebpa'mey hotel. Grammatically in Klingon, this is just the plural of the word mebpa', and is not a separate group-word. You could not, for instance, call a major hotel a *mebpa'mey'a'. You could, however, say mebpa'mey qach'a' great building of guest-rooms. With the extra information you could even leave off the now-unneeded plural suffix, for mebpa' qach'a'.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
It's a sales term, a contraction of "two for [the price of one]". See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twofer --VORAGH
-----Original Message-----
voragh:
{tuqmeyraj} not *{tuqpu’ra’} – two such suffixes (a “twofer”)
thank you voragh for sharing these canon examples. but what is a "twofer" ?
qunnoH jan puqloD
One of the things I used to tell my students (back in my professoring days) was that language is the way we choose to carve up the universe. Different languages carve differently. The reason this comes to mind for me is that rules within a language are not necessarily monolithic. Consider how we conjugate the verbs used with mass nouns in English. If the mass noun is animate, it's treated as plural (e.g., "the fish are in the pond") but if the mass noun is inanimate, it's treated as singular ("the grass is on the hill"). And other languages do this differently; Spanish, for example, but I no longer recall the critical semantic feature it uses mass nouns, only that it's different from English. Voragh's recitation of examples notwithstanding, I wonder if there is something similar going on here. Something subtle. I have no data to support such a position, just a gut feeling. And, as noted, there's lots of evidence from multiple sources to support the other side. I guess I'm saying I completely understand where you're coming from with this, but also that I trust my gut and can't simply dismiss it (nor do I think I'd be misunderstood if I constructed utterances based on my leanings). It's a bit of a pointless cautionary reminder, but we have a long history of generalizing rules from too few (and sometimes only one) example. But to be clear, you're not doing that here, you have a whole slew of examples. I just have my (impressive, but still just mine alone) gut. :D
Both {qorDu'wI'} and {qorDu'lI'} also appear in the paq'batlh, as well as {qorDu'wIj}. A difference I notice is that {-wI'} and {-lI'} are used for the living (or those who can conceivably be rescued from Gre'thor), and {-wIj} is used for those who are certainly dead, or possibly for speaking of family in a general way that includes the dead as well as the living. The capable-of-speech examples: batlh Hegh qorDu'lI' (from paq'yav Canto 3) ghe'torDaq lengbe'meH qorDu'wI' vIQan (from paq'yav Canto 12) In the first of these, Molor's envoy clearly speaks to Morath of his living kin, since only the living can die. In the second, Kahless intends to rescue his kin from Gre'thor, so he hasn't given them up for dead. The incapable-of-speech examples: qorDu'wIj quvmo' jImaghpu' qorDu'wIj quvqa'moHlu'meH jIvang vIneH (from paq'raD Canto 16) qotar vImuv qorDu'wIj vImuv (from paq'QIH Canto 2) In the first example, although Kahless is trying to rescue his family from Gre'thor, he speaks of "my family" in perhaps a general way ("my family honor") that could include all of his kin who have ever lived. In the second, he goes to join his dead relatives. And nothing to do with canon, but I recently noticed that I instinctively used {qorDu'wI'} for my own immediate family, perhaps since they are so obviously capable of speech. ~mIp'av
How does this query apply to birds such as parrots, which repeat speech but do not know what it means? Or to animals that have a complicated repertoire of noises which can convey various meanings? ----Original message----
From : bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com Date : 30/12/2016 - 04:57 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject : Re: [tlhIngan Hol] mutpu' or mutmey ? Both {qorDu'wI'} and {qorDu'lI'} also appear in the paq'batlh, as well as {qorDu'wIj}. A difference I notice is that {-wI'} and {-lI'} are used for the living (or those who can conceivably be rescued from Gre'thor), and {-wIj} is used for those who are certainly dead, or possibly for speaking of family in a general way that includes the dead as well as the living. The capable-of-speech examples: ...
]On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Anthony Appleyard < a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
How does this query apply to birds such as parrots, which repeat speech but do not know what it means? Or to animals that have a complicated repertoire of noises which can convey various meanings?
See Marc Okrand's comments in HolQeD 10:4, {matlh jupna' mu'mey}, regarding birds:
The plural suffix for birds is usually {-mey}, the general plural suffix, as would be expected. There is a difference of opinion, however, about which plural suffix to use for a few birds capable of mimicking speech, such as the {vIlInHoD} and the {qaryoq} (and the larger {qaryoq'a'}), with some Klingons using {-mey} but others preferring{-pu'}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Maltz is a member of the former camp; he said he was never able to engage a{qaryoq} in a conversation that made any sense.
I would treat possessive suffixes similarly. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 12/29/2016 10:05 AM, Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
/A *mut* is not a thing capable of using language. Its members are, but it is not. It is an abstraction./
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Metaphorically, we treat groups as possessing the attributes of language users all the time.
The Borg Collective express outrage at latest Star Trek film.
Barbers Union presses for more Bolians in new Trek series.
Readers of Schoen's fiction ask if elephants can really talk.
Translate any of the above or similar statements into Klingon and the group is clearly understood to be made up of language users and no one would blink twice at the figurative use of extending that attribute to the group.
Voragh has just posted some evidence supporting my statement. /paq'batlh/ has *qorDu'wIj* instead of **qorDu'wI'*. /paq'batlh/, KGT, and Klingon Monopoly have *tuqlIj* and *tuqmaj* and *tuqmey *and even *tuqmeyraj *instead of **tuqlI'* and **tuqma'* and *tuqpu'***and **tuqpu'ra'**.* We also recently got the word *Dojmey*/mass, masses, multitude/ which is never **Dojpu',* even when referring only to people, though in this case it may be that the word *Doj* is inherently gendered as a thing instead of a being capable of using language, just as table legs and teapot handles are gendered as body parts instead of things. This reminds me of the usage difference between British and American English. The British say "my family are" or "the company are" while Americans say "my family is" or "the company is." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qunnoH, look at other words for groups of people and how possessive suffixes (WRT capability of using language) are used with them: qorDu'wIj quvmo' jImaghpu' qorDu'wIj quvqa'moHlu'meH jIvang vIneH The reason of my betrayal was my family honor, I want to restore this honor. (PB) NB: {qorDu'wIj} not *{qorDu'wI'} - both times. pInaDqu' tuqlIj wInaDqu' je Glory to you and your house. ("We praise you highly; we also praise your house highly.") KGT NB: {tuqlIj} not *{tuqlI'}. Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS Kahless united the tribes of Kronos (PB) NB: {tuqmey} not *{tuqpu'}. qeylIS loDnI' 'opleS chovan tuqmaj vIDevmo' One day, brother Kahless, you will bow before me as leader of our house. PB NB: {tuqmaj} not *{tuqma'}. jaghpu'ra' bopujmoHtaHvIS, ghur tuqmeyraj quv. Honor will rise in your houses as you bring your enemies to their knees. MKE NB: {tuqmeyraj} not *{tuqpu'ra'} - two such suffixes (a "twofer"). --Voragh On 12/29/2016 9:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: if we are talking about 10 species of aliens, all capable of speech, then do we say {Hoch mutpu' vISov} or {Hoch mutmey vISov} ? A mut is not a thing capable of using language. Its members are, but it is not. It is an abstraction. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (8)
-
Alan Anderson -
Anthony Appleyard -
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
Lawrence M. Schoen -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel