[tlhIngan Hol] Two {-'e'}'s in a pronoun sentence.

[nIqolay Q]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:21 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> nIqolay Q:
> > But after a while you have to realize that you're probably not > opening
> up productive new avenues of linguistic innovation, > you're just trying to
> convince yourself that nonsense isn't
> > nonsense.
>
> One thing which truly amazes me on this list, is how some people are
> always ready to judge others with regards to the questions they choose to
> ask.
>
> Has anyone here appointed himself as the klingon-police, who will examine
> the quality of other people's questions and pass judgement as far as their
> motives for asking are concerned ?
>
> Either you like it or not, different things will concern different people,
> and each person will require assistance with regards to the obstacles he
> has encountered.
>

The comment about "nonsense" wasn't in reference to your question. It's a
perfectly fine question to ask, and I enjoyed answering it. The "nonsense"
was in reference to sentences with two {-'e'}, and I explained why I
thought such sentences were nonsense -- because {-'e'} is a topic marker
and sentences have one topic.

Like I said, I also think about weird corner cases of Klingon grammar a
lot, and in doing so often I'll reach a point where I'll think to myself:
"It'd be convenient if this were acceptable, sure. But there's no examples
of it, there's plenty of potential examples that use another construction,
it seems to go against the precedents of other known grammar, and there's
other, far less controversial ways to phrase the same idea. So it's
probably not acceptable, and if I try using it it will look like nonsense."
And so I put that thought aside, and find simpler ways to translate things.
(If I were to ask Okrand about all the weird corner cases I've thought
about in my years of doing Klingon, he'd shoot me in the head after ten
minutes, and I'd probably still keep talking for five more.)

Maybe in the future Okrand will say "it's acceptable to say {X'e' ghah
Y'e'}" and you will be vindicated and I will look like a chump. Maybe not.
My guess is that he'd say it's not grammatical, but also that it's
understandable and acceptable in less formal or less strictly-grammatical
contexts, along the lines of {tu'lu'} with plural objects or using
{-la'/-luH} as a type 5 suffix.

 When I ask something, I am not asking in order to just post a question. I
> ask because I have come across an obstacle.
>

My thing here is that a lot of times when you ask questions, it sort of
seems like you've gotten hung up on one specific sort of idea or phrasing
or whatever, without exploring alternatives first. Whether it's okay to use
two {-'e'} suffixes in one sentence is a fine question to ask when you're
musing about the possibilities of grammar. But I'm having trouble seeing
how it's an outright obstacle to translation, since most {X'e' 'oH Y'e'}
sentences could be rephrased to not need two {-'e'} suffixes at all. When
you ask "Is such-and-such a construction acceptable?", also ask "Does it
need to be?" Often you won't need some elaborate or unattested construction
to finish a translation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170912/589ac64b/attachment-0017.htm>