[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: chIp

[Felix Malmenbeck]

ghItlhta' Voragh:
> I agree.  If it were, the definition would have been "cut hair" not "cut (hair)". 
> I think Okrand added "(hair)" to distinguish {chIp} from the more general verb
> {pe'} "cut".

I've taken it to mean something more like "If the verb takes an object, it should be some form of hair. For example, {jIb}, {rol} or {veD}." Sort of the way parentheses are used to distinguish between the meaning of "follow" for <ghoS> = "follow (a course)", <pab> = "follow (rules)" and <tlha'> = "follow".

Like SuStel, I think it might be to signify that it still makes sense to use this verb with an object: <jIbDaj chIplI'> means "He's cutting her hair.", not "He's cutting hair her hair."
If I had a limited amount of space and had to give you a translation of the French word "coiffer" or the Swedish word "frisera", I might very well provide it as "cut (someone's) hair", to signify that (someone) is the object.

Also, like SuStel:

> I think the use of parentheses is inconsistent enough that you can't
> rely on it too closely.

vItmo' vIghItlhqa'ta'. {Quoted for truth.}


[[Off-topic: If I ever become an English teacher, I must remember to use haircuts as an example of the hazards of direct translations.

English: "I'm getting my hair cut, tonight."
Swedish: "Jag ska klippa mig ikväll."
Backtranslation: "I shall cut myself, tonight."]]

________________________________________
From: Steven Boozer [sboozer at uchicago.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 15:42
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: chIp

ghunchu'wI':
> It might not even be stretching the meaning at all. {chIp} doesn't
> actually *include* the hair idea. That's given in parentheses as an
> example of the kind of object it can have, not as the only one
> possible. I'd accept that {chIp} alone does *imply* hair, based on the
> {ghuS} example, but I wouldn't expect any verb to have its object
> restricted to a specific noun.

I agree.  If it were, the definition would have been "cut hair" not "cut (hair)".  I think Okrand added "(hair)" to distinguish {chIp} from the more general verb {pe'} "cut".

A better question is:  How do {chip} and {poD} "be clipped"/{poDmoH} "clip" differ?  The former has never been used in a sentence AFAIK and the latter only appears in {tlhIngan Hol poD} "Clipped Klingon" and {Hol poD} "clipped language".  Does one use {poDmoH} for, say, clipping one's nails or snipping off a single rose from the stem?  Can we say ?{lav chIp} for trimming shrubbery to a uniform height?  Would *{poDmoHwI'} work for "clippers, secateurs" but ?{lav chIpwI'} for "hedge trimmers"?


--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol