[tlhIngan Hol] [KLBC] Can you use several adjective-verbs for the same noun?

Fri Sep 30 06:07:19 PDT 2016

always -until now-, I never thought of using more than two adjectives on
the same noun.

why ? because somehow, I had gotten the impression  that the maximum number
is two.

obviously I was wrong, however I feel that even if it is legal to use three
adjectives on a single noun, then the resulting sentence would be rather
long and perhaps difficult to follow.

even in english (and greek if anyone wonders..), you would say "I see a
hungry white cat", but you wouldn't say " I see a funny hungry white cat".
It wouldn't be grammatically wrong, but it just wouldn't "sound nice". you
would prefer to say something like "I see a funny white cat, which is
hungry". so, why not follow 'arHa's advice and break down your klingon
sentence into 2 smaller ones.

the goal in klingon shouldn't be long, complex sentences; you should rather
strive to express yourself in small ones, which the reader is easily able
to follow.

anyway, as americans say "this is my 2 cents on this subject"

qunnoq
ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'

On 30 Sep 2016 12:46 p.m., "Aurélie Demonchaux" <
demonchaux.aurelie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks all for your reply! (Hoch tujangta’mo’ qatlho’!)
>
>
> *@**Quvar valer 'utlh*
>
>> Savan!
>>
>> Your message marked as KLBC is directed to one person only, so it may be
>> more correct to say {qavan}, but that's really nitpicking ;-)
>
> jIyaj, Dochmey mach jISaH je!
>
>
>
>> What I actually wanted to say is that you speak so much Klingon already,
>> that you are not a true "beginner".
>
> qatlho’ :) ’ach Dochmey law’ tu’lu’ ’e’ wej vIghojta’.
>
>
>
>> PS: if possible, deactivate autoformatting for apostrophes.
>
> qaghwI' vIvevmo’, DaH <Alt + 0146> vIlo’ ’e’ vIwaH.
>
>
>
> *@Voragh:*
>
> qu’! pab lo’mey cho’aghta’mo’ qatlho’ :)
>
>
>
> *@’arHa:*
>
>> “jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.”
>> I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup
>> vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
>
> Yes it makes sense too. But in this case, wouldn’t it shift the focus of
> the text?
>
>
> 1/ “jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh”
>
> I feel that here the focus of the sentence is more on the description of
> the officer that I’m seeing, with his 1st three attributes <jaq>, <maw’>,
> <woch> on an equal footing, and <Qup> being considered the most essential
> attribute, since it’s directly added after <yaS>.
>
>
> We can show the highlight as below:
>
> <I see a *young officer*, (who is) tall, bold but crazy.>
>
>
> The way I interpret things (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that, in
> Klingon, if we put a normal adjective just after the noun, then it would be
> considered as the noun’s main / defining attribute, and the relative
> clauses would then describe secondary attributes.
>
>
> Following this assumption, if we shuffle it around a bit, we could insist
> more on the fact that the main attribute of the officer is, for example,
> being “tall” instead of “young”:
>
> “jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej Qupbogh yaS woch vIlegh”
>
> <I see a *tall officer*, (who is) young, bold but crazy.>
>
>
> or if we want to put absolutely all attributes on an equal footing, then
> we use –bogh everywhere, so the main object of the sentence is no longer a
> tall or young officer (who is bold but crazy…), but just “an officer” (who
> is young, tall etc):
>
> “Qupbogh ’ej wochbogh ’ej jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh yaS vIlegh”
>
> <I see a young, tall, bold but crazy *officer*.>
>
>
>
> 2/ yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'
>
> Here there are 2 statements so each statement highlights a different focus
> point.
>
>
> -        yaS Qup vIlegh : focus on “I see an officer” (the “core” part of
> the action, with no descriptive element)
> -        jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu': the description of the officer that I
> see, with an emphasis on “… but he is really crazy”
>
>
> So it seems to bring a different nuance from what I'd suggested.
>
>
>
> Sorry if I over-analyze it though! (I like to go into the details, and
> this is also really important in translation) Let me know what you think
> :)
>
>
> Also, next time, maybe it’s best if I don’t use the KLBC anymore, so
> everyone is free to join the conversation directly if they want.
>
>
> ~mughwI'
>
> 2016-09-30 0:35 GMT+02:00 John R. Harness <cartweel at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all --
>>
>> Lieven:
>> "And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but
>> I'll let the BG tell you why."
>>
>> Actually I don't know why, other than that's how people do it. Maybe
>> because it starts to produce parsing errors?
>>
>> mughwI':
>> “jaqbogh ‘ach maw’bogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.”
>>
>> I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup
>> vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
>>
>> 'arHa
>>
>> --
>>
>> Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/>
>> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lieven:
>>> > And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but
>>> I'll
>>> > let the BG tell you why.
>>>
>>> Aurélie Demonchaux:
>>> >> Is there a canon reference somewhere listing several adjectives
>>> >> linked to the same noun? As in:
>>>
>>> While we're waiting for the BG here are the references you requested:
>>>
>>>   romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'
>>>   Romulan hunter-killer probe (KCD)
>>>
>>>   SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh
>>>   The tea that is {SuD} and light. (KGT)
>>>    (i.e. light green tea)
>>>
>>>   Suto'vo'qor botlhDaq
>>>     pe'vIl joqchu'taH
>>>     quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ
>>>   [translation unavailable] (PB)
>>>
>>>
>>> This last example is controversial so I wouldn't advise using it:
>>>
>>>   yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI'
>>>     Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw
>>>   The blood of battle washes clean
>>>     the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
>>>
>>> It's the only known example of the pattern {X-bogh Y-bogh je NOUN} --
>>> possibly because it's a song lyric and the translation had to fit the meter.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Voragh
>>> tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a'
>>> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160930/39c5c695/attachment.htm>