[Tlhingan-hol] this / that as subject

[lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com]

While I agree with the suggestions given, since I've enjoyed the topic of deixis ever since Marc Orkand explained it to me, I see that the difference between "This is a chair," and {quS 'oH} is that the Klingon omits the deictic reference implied in the English, though there are other methods of translating that idea, like {naDev 'quS 'oHtaH} and {pa' vavwI' ghaHtaH}. I add the Type 7 only because I remember something about that usually being used in this kind of setting, for no reason that ever made sense to me. "This is a chair," is closer to "Here is a chair," than it is to "It is a chair." "That is my father," is closer to "There is my father," than it is to "He is my father," since in writing, there's no way to know how you are indicating where the person is that you are referring to.

So, going back to the original example, I'd add as a suggestion, {naDev DujwIj 'oHtaH.} It's not better than {Dujvam 'oH DujwIj'e'} or {DujwIj 'oH Dujvam'e'}, but it stands as a peer and is with the stretchy space that is stylistic expression of an idea by different people, or by the same person at different times.

For that matter, you could also say, {naDev DujwIj tu'lu',} {naDev quS tu'lu',} or {pa' vavwI' tu'lu'.}

The rabbit needs skinning. There are so many choices of method...

On Sep 24, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:

> lugh Philip, 'ej batlh QIj.
> 
> Personally, where English says "This is a chair" "That is my father" I just say <quS 'oH> <vavwI' ghaH>, and point. Is there a functional difference?
> 
> - Qov
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Newton [mailto:philip.newton at gmail.com] 
> Sent: September 24, 2014 0:36
> To: Brad Wilson
> Cc: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] this / that as subject
> 
> On 24 September 2014 04:17, Brad Wilson <bmacliam at aol.com> wrote:
>> I was thinking that there is no way to use "this" and "that" as nouns 
>> except as suffixes like {Dochvam / Dochvetlh}.
> 
> {Dochvam / Dochvetlh} are what I usually see for “this” and “that”, respectively.
> 
>> Then I thought that a sentence like "This is my ship" might be 
>> rendered as {DujwIj 'oHvam}.
> 
> I think not. In {DujwIj 'oH}, the {'oH} is acting as a verb, in my opinion, so it can only take verbal suffixes—you could say {DujwIj 'oHbej}, for example, or {DujwIj 'oHbe'}.
> 
> I would recommend {DujwIj 'oH Dujvam'e'}.
> 
> And even if {'oH} were acting as a noun, {'oHvam} would mean *“this it” (as opposed to “another it”?), which would make little sense to me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol