[Tlhingan-hol] nuqDaq ghaH 'arHa'e'?

[qurgh lungqIj]

"To be mixed-up" in English, when applied to a person, means "to be
perplexed". The confusion seems to be coming from a limitation applied to
"mixed-up" that doesn't exist. "While walking the maze, he got mixed-up",
"She was mixed-up by the signs at the airport and ended up at the wrong
terminal."

"To mix-up" cards is an idiom meaning "to shuffle" them. Things don't
actually get mixed-up (unless you are making a cake and then combine would
be better), people get them mixed-up. People become confused and make the
wrong choices based on incorrect data. That's being mixed-up.

qurgh
On Nov 21, 2015 4:24 AM, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > Your reference to an earlier discussion points to a single message by
> you, which hardly seems conclusive to anyone but perhaps you.
>
> I linked to the first message that started the discussion, because
> that's the only way to link to a thread in the KLI mailing list.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the summary of the counterargument seems
> to be, "that's how the core members of the KLI have always interpreted
> it." And that's my point: what KLI members consider good Klingon isn't
> restricted to canon, it also consists of interpretations that they've
> layered on top of it.
>
> The best way to see that the KLI's interpretations aren't necessarily
> obvious or universal is to spend some time around beginners whose
> first language isn't American English (like at the qepHom in Germany).
> There are a number of words whose English definitions are ambiguous,
> which have been consistently interpreted in one way on the KLI mailing
> list (dominated by American English speakers), but which beginners
> whose first language isn't English and have to consult an English
> dictionary don't interpret in the same way. {mIS} is just the most
> obvious example.
>
> In fact, it's such an obvious and self-referential example that I
> can't believe it's not a deliberate joke, like the listing of
> {bachHa'} as a noun. Most English-to-other-language dictionaries have
> two (or more) entries for "be confused". When an English word has
> multiple unrelated meanings, Okrand has disambiguated them in TKD by a
> second definition which narrowed the sense of the first (e.g., "lie,
> fib" vs. "lie, recline"). Thus, one would expect to see the following
> entries:
>
> {mIS} v. be confused, mixed up
> {missing verb} v. be confused, perplexed
>
> I believe that Okrand couldn't pass up an opportunity to make a clever
> joke and left out the "be confused, perplexed" entry on purpose. If
> {mIS} meant what you think it meant, there would have been no reason
> for it to be glossed as "mixed up", which can only serve to
> disambiguate it from the other sense of "be confused". He could've
> left the definition as "be confused" without a disambiguating second
> definition, in which case most people would've interpreted it in the
> sense of mental perplexity (because that's the more common meaning of
> "be confused" in English), which makes me believe that he added "mixed
> up" on purpose.
>
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > The form of the gloss, "be confused" suggests that it is likely a verb
> that can be adjectival, like "be big" or "be red, orange". These words
> generally don't take direct objects. You can't "be red" something.
>
> Where has anyone suggested otherwise? I agree it's an adjective. That
> it describes a property of the subject is exactly my point.
>
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > The twins in your example might be often confused (for each other by
> someone else) but that confusion requires a third party as the agent of the
> confusion. The twins aren't actually doing anything. You are using the
> passive voice to hide the subject. No subject similarly be red something.
> But someone else must be in a state of confusion over the identity of the
> twins.
>
> If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it
> still make a sound? Yes, actually, it does. Something can actually be
> {chuS} without anyone around to hear it. {'echletHommey mIS} makes
> perfect sense to describe a mixed-up (physically confused) deck of
> cards regardless of whether anyone's around to be (mentally) confused
> by them. The fact that someone must be bored in order for something to
> be boring doesn't mean that {Dal} has a hidden subject, and the fact
> that something can be essential only with respect to something else
> doesn't mean that {'ut} has a hidden subject. Like {ghIH} "be messy",
> {mIS} "be confused, mixed up" is a property of the subject of the
> verb, in languages where such a verb (or adjective) exists.
>
> This is much more clear to speakers of languages in which "be
> confused, mixed up" (physically) is a completely different and
> unrelated word to "be confused, mentally perplexed". The fact that
> other languages have separate words for these concepts doesn't mean
> that Klingon does too, but the two meanings of "be confused" are not
> as tightly or obviously related as you seem to think. It would be an
> unfortunate coincidence if it just happened to be the case that
> Klingon works exactly like American English.
>
> I recognise that most KLI mailing list members consider {mIS} to mean
> "be confused, mentally perplexed" by what ghuchu'wI' called "twenty
> years of consistent usage" in the thread that I linked. I just think
> that those people who have assumed that's what it means have missed a
> joke that's obvious to people who speak languages where the two senses
> of "be confused" map to different words, and have "confused" two
> definitions of the word in a way that underlies the joke (and they are
> "confused"). A literal reading of the definition doesn't imply mental
> confusion. That's an extension of the given meaning. Perhaps Klingons
> have the same idiom in this instance as American English speakers, but
> that's "not canon".
>
> And that's my point. The KLI mailing list has developed some
> conventions which are, strictly speaking, not canon. There are
> ambiguities in the canon, and the KLI mailing list has developed
> conventions which are a matter of historical accident. It's not as
> clear cut as qunnoQ HoD described.
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151121/8928f372/attachment.html>