[tlhIngan Hol] [KLBC] Can you use several adjective-verbs for the same noun?
Aurélie Demonchaux
demonchaux.aurelie at gmail.com
Fri Sep 30 08:12:44 PDT 2016
@qunnoq
[...]
> 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.
Yes it makes sense, it does get complicated after a bit, and actually we
seldom have more than 2-3 adjectives in French as well.
Plus, now that I think further on it, a Klingon may be more likely to just
select 1 main attribute - whichever is most relevant - in a sentence to cut
straight to the point.
mughwI'
2016-09-30 15:07 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160930/2641104d/attachment-0018.htm>
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol
mailing list