[tlhIngan Hol] new words qepHom 2020

Felix Malmenbeck felixm at kth.se
Thu Dec 17 09:53:17 PST 2020


> … unless you are commenting on the idea of using {-pu’} on a verb in a clause with {wejHa’} at its head,

> which seems simple enough that I wonder why it even bears comment.


I suspect it was included with the question, or just pre-empting possible future questions.


> In a simple sentence, an adverbial comes before the main verb. If there is a dependent clause,

> would the adverbial come before the clause it applies to, or would it come before a dependent

> clause that precedes the main clause, even if it were meant to apply to the main verb?


It seems logical that it should be in the same (sub)clause as the action it is modifying, and there is at least some support for this:


{bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay'.}

{bImejDI', reH betleHlIj yItlhap.}

{De' lI' Sovlu'DI', chaq Do'Ha'.}


One can also contrast:

{Hoch DaSopbe'chugh, batlh bIHeghbe'.}

with

{batlhHa' vanglu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu'.}

and

{batlh Heghlu'chugh noDnISbe' vay'.}


There's also all the {bIjeghbe'chugh vaj bIHegh.}, where the {vaj} in the main clause is referencing the conditional clause.


I do believe that there have been exceptions, but I can't think of any clear examples.


An arguable examples of an adverbial modifying more than a single (sub)clause can be seen in:


{DuHIvchugh ghol vaj qaStaHvIS may'vetlh HoSDaq ghob luchel quv ghajbogh tlhInganpu'lI'.}

("If an opponent attacks you, during that battle your Klingons with Honor add INTEGRITY to STRENGTH.")


I don't think the {vaj} here is really modifying {qaStaHvIS may'vetlh} in isolation, but rather the entire sentence that follows. The {vaj} isn't really there to describe the nature of the battle that's occuring; it just helps to break up the sentence into a neat if-then structure.


There's also

{DuHIv jagh Dangu'laHbe'bogh, vaj bIwunchoH 'ej bIpujchoH.}

where I interpret the {vaj} as applying equally well to both {bIwunchoH} and {bIpujchoH}, but does not need to be repeated; the causal relationship is fresh in the reader's mind, and so the meaning of {vaj} can cross the sentence boundary, whether or not it formally does so according to the grammatical rules governing adverbials.


The way I tend to think of it is that the natural scope of an adverbial is the clause in which it is placed, but because Klingon is not lojban, it can be more fluid than that.


//loghaD


________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 21:48
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] new words qepHom 2020

I’m curious as to how {-pu’} could be used with {wejHa’}, since I’ve never seen it used with any adverbial before. {wejHa’} is not a verb, and so far as I know {-Ha’} is the only verb suffix that can be used (and not universally) on (certain) adverbials (when it produces meaningful results)…

… unless you are commenting on the idea of using {-pu’} on a verb in a clause with {wejHa’} at its head, which seems simple enough that I wonder why it even bears comment.

Meanwhile, I’m wondering if “I have to leave because it is already dark,” has the potential to be very ambiguous, if you aren’t careful about optional word order. There’s a subtle difference between that English sentence and “I already have to leave because it is dark."

Instead of spouting off about how it should be done as if I weren’t rusty, I’ll ask.

In a simple sentence, an adverbial comes before the main verb. If there is a dependent clause, would the adverbial come before the clause it applies to, or would it come before a dependent clause that precedes the main clause, even if it were meant to apply to the main verb?

Preferably, give examples of different ways to translate the sentence with {Hurghmo’}, {jItlheDnIS}, and {wejHa’} sequenced in order to give the two clear meanings and the one ambiguous one.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Dec 16, 2020, at 12:10 PM, Jackson Bradley <j.monroe.bradley at gmail.com<mailto:j.monroe.bradley at gmail.com>> wrote:

Woo-hoo! New words! jISeyqu'ba'!
A huge congratulations and thanks to Lieven who put all this together! bIDunqu'!

Some of what's included in the list this year is vocab I received for a book I recently finished, cha' monmey (http://klingon.wiki/En/ChaMonmey). It's quite lengthy, and so there were a few terms for which I ended up querying Dr. Okrand (and Maltz, of course) in order to make my text as clean as possible.

Most of that info can be found in the qepHom booklet, so I won't be redundant and also post it here. I will, however, post a clarification on the word qal and some more culled comments on wejHa':




  *   qal


be corrupt (v)

this can be used to describe corrupt people





  *   wejHa'


already (adv)

wejHa' is an adverbial meaning "before now" or "as of now."  It doesn't have to be "now" (meaning the time of speaking), of course, so maybe a better (though more awkward) characterization is something like "before or as of a time referenced in the sentence or context."

I've already bought food ("already" referencing now, the time of speaking)
By 6:00 p.m., I'd already bought food ("already" referencing a time established in the sentence or context)

I suppose "already" is a good short gloss.

As with "already," I think you'd use wejHa' if you intend to explicitly indicate a change of state or change of conditions. For example, "already" in I have to leave because it's already dark implies not only that it's dark now, but that the change from light to dark is somehow relevant — it's become dark, it's no longer not dark (perhaps it got dark sooner than expected or desired or while nobody was paying attention to the time or something like that). The sentence means more than just "I have to leave because it is dark now."

But wejHa' doesn't totally match up with English "already." wejHa' does not carry the connotation of impatience or exasperation expressed by "already" in Stop already with the fidgeting.

wejHa' and -pu' can be (but don't have to be) used together. And it's subtle.






rIn.
-DeSDu'

Le mer. 16 déc. 2020, à 07 h 53, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de<mailto:levinius at gmx.de>> a écrit :
Am 16.12.2020 um 13:46 schrieb Jeremy Silver:
> I notice  this word lurking in the *Clarifications and additions* section on
> the wiki page:
>
> ghaS ("indicate, signal")
>
> Is this a brand new word that needs to be in the main list?

Yes, indeed. Thanks for noticing. I'll fix that immediately.

--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
http://www.tlhInganHol.com<http://www.tlhinganhol.com/>
http://klingon.wiki/En/NewWordsQepHom2020
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/20201217/2832b412/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list