[tlhIngan Hol] Beginner questions - SAO, SAS and pronouns

[SuStel]

On 9/28/2020 12:11 PM, Luis Chaparro Caballero wrote:
>> When you explicitly use a pronoun, you're making it clear that that's
>> the pronoun you have in mind, or you're speaking extra-clearly to make
>> sure you've been heard. If I say *HoD Duj vIlegh*/I see the captain's
>> ship/ and then follow it up with *vIghov,* am I saying I recognize the
>> captain or the ship? I can clarify by explicitly using a pronoun: *ghaH
>> vIghov*/I recognize him/her/ or *'oH vIghov*/I recognize it./
>> Here the prefix makes the sentence clear. Why do we use "jIH" here if its not for emphasis?
> I understand we can use the pronouns in order to make an ambiguous sentence clear. But in TKD we see this example:
>
> yaS vIlegh jIH
>
> Here the prefix makes the sentence clear. Why are we using "jIH"? Is that what you mean when you say "speaking extra-clearly to make sure you've been heard"?

"Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added clarity. 
They are not required."**

TKD shows us the example *yaS vIlegh jIH* but points out that it is 
identical in meaning to *yaS vIlegh.* Both are grammatical, but the 
former would only be used in normal speech for emphasis or clarity. An 
example in a book of grammar is not normal speech, it is being instructive.
**


>>> 3. And what if the first sentence is intended to be the subject of the second one? paq Daje'pu'. QaQ.
>> I would assume that the elided subject of *QaQ* is *paq.* You cannot
>> have a sentence act as subject. This pair of sentences cannot mean /Your
>> buying the book was good./
> So if I want to say something like "It's good that you have bought the book" or "Your buying the book is good" and avoid that people understand "the book is good", then I need a noun, since a sentence cannot be the subject of another sentence, right? So maybe:
>
> paq Daje'pu'. QaQ wanI'vam.

Yes, something like this.

Pronouns can and usually should be dropped when they're acting as nouns, 
but nouns shouldn't be turned into pronouns unless you've already made 
clear what the pronoun is. For instance:

*HoD vIlegh. vIHoH.
*

The object of *vIHoH* has to be *ghaH, 'oH, chaH,* or *bIH.* The 
previous sentence has *HoD* as the object, and anyone reading or hearing 
this would (rightly) assume that whatever pronoun it is must be 
referring to the only obvious noun, *HoD.* So the dropped pronoun is 
*ghaH,* and since everything is so clear, there's no need to use it.

*tlhIngan HoHpu' romuluSngan. vImuS.*

In this case, it's completely obvious that the dropped pronoun is 
*ghaH,* but that's not helpful since you can't make out whether I hate 
the Klingon or the Romulan. Which one does the elided *ghaH* refer to? 
This is a case where you shouldn't have turned the object noun into a 
pronoun in the first place.

*tlhIngan luHoHpu' DenIb qatlh. vIHo'.*

In this case, is the object of *vIHo'* *ghaH* (the Klingon) or *bIH* 
(the Denebian slime devils)? The sentence doesn't make this clear. The 
pronoun should not have been dropped. But if I say *ghaH vIHo'*/I 
admired him,/ you don't need the full noun *tlhIngan* to understand what 
the object is, but you /do/ need the pronoun to know which one I admire.


>> You're on the right track. I'd probably use *wanI'* for this: *bIlaDtaH.
>> QaQ wanI'vam'e'.*/You are reading. THAT (and not something else) is
>> good./ But these are definitely two separate sentences in Klingon.
> And if I want to put emphasis, then I use "-'e'":
>
> paq Daje'pu'. QaQ wanI'vam'e'.

"You bought the book. THIS EVENT (not some other event) was good.


> But then I'm not sure if I understand the sentence in "Star Trek Discovery":
>
> tlhIngan maH. taHjaj.
>
> Isn't the subject of "taHjaj" the sentence "tlhIngan maH"? Something like: "It may endure, that we are Klingons", or "Our being Klingons may endure"? What is otherwise the subject of "taHjaj"? Shouldn't we use here some sort of noun, like in "paq Daje'pu'. QaQ wanI'vam." I'm probably missing something important, sorry!

This sentence is not canonical Klingon — Okrand didn't write or approve 
it — so I wouldn't worry too much about it. I've heard Qov explain her 
thinking behind it, but I can't quite remember what she said about it. 
I'm pretty sure she said it wasn't meant to be interpreted as a 
sentence-as-subject. The sentence is also meant to be a slogan, not 
formally grammatical Klingon. I don't think it's even meant to be 
considered as two completely separate sentences. We don't even know for 
sure what the elided subject actually is. Is this Clipped Klingon? So 
many questions...

This was my speculation on it in that thread: 
http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2018-February/007284.html

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200928/bb6a20c9/attachment.htm>