I was wondering whether we could say: {loS ngIq mIw luSIQlu'} four individual processes someone endured Meaning "four individual processes one after the other". What puzzles me is using a number in conjuction with {ngIq}. Could this be done ? Is the above sentence correct ? ~ nI'ghma
I’m not sure. {ngIq} has been used in sentences with numbers, but not in the way you want (if I understand what you’re trying to say). E.g. ngIq tonSaw' lo' SaD law' San chenmoH qeylIS wej boghbogh nuvpu' San chenmoH In one single move, Kahless decided the fate of thousands, and those to come. PB ngIq raQ – 200 QaS, mon – 200 QaS loS raQmey je Outposts cost 200 each; capitals, 200 each plus 4 outposts. 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 Since {mIw} means “procedure, process; step, stage (in a process)” – sequential by nature – why not just say {loS mIw luSIQlu'}? Note there’s also a separate verb {quq} meaning “happen simultaneously”: quqtaHvIS wanI'vam raQDaq pawta' qotar qempa'QeH je At the same time Kotar and the *Qempa'keh* arrive at the camp. PB And don’t forget the adverbials {nIteb} "alone, acting alone, on one’s own, etc." vs. {nItebHa'} "linked, (acting) united, side-by-side, etc.”. --Voragh From: mayqel qunenoS I was wondering whether we could say: {loS ngIq mIw luSIQlu'} four individual processes someone endured Meaning "four individual processes one after the other". What puzzles me is using a number in conjuction with {ngIq}. Could this be done ? Is the above sentence correct ? ~ nI'ghma
I guess I could omit the {loS} and still express the desired meaning. But the question remains; if {ngIq} expresses "a sequence of things one after the other", then why not specify with a number the quantity of these things ? Putting aside the fact that it has never been used in canon with a number preceding it.. If someone read the {loS ngIq mIwHom luSIQlu'}, would he understand the intended meaning ? Or would there be any room for confusion/misinterpretation, as far as the intended meaning is concerned ? ~ nI'ghma On Jan 5, 2018 23:07, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
I’m not sure. {ngIq} has been used in sentences with numbers, but not in the way you want (if I understand what you’re trying to say). E.g.
ngIq tonSaw' lo' SaD law' San chenmoH qeylIS wej boghbogh nuvpu' San chenmoH
In one single move, Kahless decided the fate of thousands, and those to come. PB
ngIq raQ – 200 QaS, mon – 200 QaS loS raQmey je
Outposts cost 200 each; capitals, 200 each plus 4 outposts. 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
Since {mIw} means “procedure, process; step, stage (in a process)” – sequential by nature – why not just say {loS mIw luSIQlu'}? Note there’s also a separate verb {quq} meaning “happen simultaneously”:
quqtaHvIS wanI'vam raQDaq pawta' qotar qempa'QeH je
At the same time Kotar and the **Qempa'keh** arrive at the camp. PB
And don’t forget the adverbials {nIteb} "alone, acting alone, on one’s own, etc." vs. {nItebHa'} "linked, (acting) united, side-by-side, etc.”.
--Voragh
*From:* mayqel qunenoS
I was wondering whether we could say:
{loS ngIq mIw luSIQlu'}
four individual processes someone endured
Meaning "four individual processes one after the other".
What puzzles me is using a number in conjuction with {ngIq}.
Could this be done ? Is the above sentence correct ?
~ nI'ghma
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
In lieu of a definitive answer, a possible workaround for this particular situation: «loS mIwHommey'e' ngIq SIQlu'.» "As for the four subprocesses, they're endured one by one." (Note that «ngIq» is grammatically singular, similar to «cha»; MO specified in the notes for the latest qepHom that «ngIq mIch wIHotlh.» is correct but *ngIq mIch DIHotlh.* is not.) //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 10:35:32 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] ngIq and numbers I guess I could omit the {loS} and still express the desired meaning. But the question remains; if {ngIq} expresses "a sequence of things one after the other", then why not specify with a number the quantity of these things ? Putting aside the fact that it has never been used in canon with a number preceding it.. If someone read the {loS ngIq mIwHom luSIQlu'}, would he understand the intended meaning ? Or would there be any room for confusion/misinterpretation, as far as the intended meaning is concerned ? ~ nI'ghma On Jan 5, 2018 23:07, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu<mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu>> wrote: I'm not sure. {ngIq} has been used in sentences with numbers, but not in the way you want (if I understand what you're trying to say). E.g. ngIq tonSaw' lo' SaD law' San chenmoH qeylIS wej boghbogh nuvpu' San chenmoH In one single move, Kahless decided the fate of thousands, and those to come. PB ngIq raQ - 200 QaS, mon - 200 QaS loS raQmey je Outposts cost 200 each; capitals, 200 each plus 4 outposts. 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 Since {mIw} means "procedure, process; step, stage (in a process)" - sequential by nature - why not just say {loS mIw luSIQlu'}? Note there's also a separate verb {quq} meaning "happen simultaneously": quqtaHvIS wanI'vam raQDaq pawta' qotar qempa'QeH je At the same time Kotar and the *Qempa'keh* arrive at the camp. PB And don't forget the adverbials {nIteb} "alone, acting alone, on one's own, etc." vs. {nItebHa'} "linked, (acting) united, side-by-side, etc.". --Voragh From: mayqel qunenoS I was wondering whether we could say: {loS ngIq mIw luSIQlu'} four individual processes someone endured Meaning "four individual processes one after the other". What puzzles me is using a number in conjuction with {ngIq}. Could this be done ? Is the above sentence correct ? ~ nI'ghma _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jan 5, 2018, at 3:27 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I was wondering whether we could say:
{loS ngIq mIw luSIQlu'} four individual processes someone endured
That doesn’t feel right to me. There is a conflict between the singular nature of {ngIq} and trying to talk about more than one of it. Such semantic tension might be okay in poetry. I would suggest avoiding it anywhere else. It seems similar to counting things that are inherently plural — maybe it’s possible, but I don’t remember ever seeing an example of how to do it. -- ghunchu'wI'
Felix Malmenbeck:
«loS mIwHommey'e' ngIq SIQlu'.» "As for the four subprocesses, they're endured one by one."
I like this so much ! It is absolutely beautiful ! ~ nI'ghma On Jan 6, 2018 03:01, "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Jan 5, 2018, at 3:27 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I was wondering whether we could say:
{loS ngIq mIw luSIQlu'} four individual processes someone endured
That doesn’t feel right to me. There is a conflict between the singular nature of {ngIq} and trying to talk about more than one of it. Such semantic tension might be okay in poetry. I would suggest avoiding it anywhere else.
It seems similar to counting things that are inherently plural — maybe it’s possible, but I don’t remember ever seeing an example of how to do it.
-- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (4)
-
Felix Malmenbeck -
ghunchu'wI' 'utlh -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer