[tlhIngan Hol] Beginner's text and questions
sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Jun 18 10:19:39 PDT 2021
On 6/18/2021 12:54 PM, luis.chaparro at web.de wrote:
>>> muchwI'pu', mI'wI'pu', bomwI'pu' je much 'oH *flamenco*'e'. mIw yItlh pabbe'bogh meHghem nong'e' 'oH.
>> Stylistic note: why not say nong meHghem 'ej mIw yItlh pabbe'? Klingon is always better when you use basic sentences instead of copulas. If you find you're using copulas with noun phrases that include verb modifiers or relative clauses, you're probably thinking in English, or at least translating too literally.
> Thank you! Actually, I wasn't very sure about that sentence, I was in fact thinking in Spanish. Anyway, in Spanish (or English) there is a difference, let's say of *stress*, between *It's a passionate art which doesn't follow any set rules* and *this art is passionate and doesn't follow any set rules*. I understand what you say about using basic sentences in Klingon. I just wanted to know if there is another way to take account of this slight difference.
I think the difference is in putting the adjective before the noun.
Fronting things tends to give them more emphasis or importance.
In Klingon, since verbs take over the role of adjectives, and since
verbs come before nouns in sentences, the verbs are already fronted.
Even as a matter of this kind of fronting emphasis, basic sentences are
preferable in Klingon (*nong meHghem* instead of *meHghem nong 'oH*).
>> So far as we can tell from canon, adverbials, non-pronomial question words, and syntactic noun phrases appear to all go in the space between time expressions and the object. Separate types of word do not appear to have any set order in that space. In my opinion, adverbials have a tendency to come before syntactic noun phrases, and non-pronomial question words have a tendency to come before adverbials, but that's only a hunch of a tendency, not a rule.
> So, if I understand you, you mean something like this?:
> time expressions - [non-pronominal question words / adverbials / syntactic noun phrases] - O - V - S
> Square brackets meaning *the order in between is a tendency, not a rule*. So: *DaHjaj qatlh nom Qe'Daq pItSa' chab DaSoppu'?* (it's of course an artificial example, but I just want to know if I get it right).
Yes, that's right. The tendency thing is just my hunch about it, not
something that people have agreed upon.
>> If you want to separate nouns to have the same relative clause, you need to repeat the relative clause and/or conjoin the nouns. So far as I can tell, meq motlh luSovlu'bogh ngeDbogh qechmey Daj je means known usual reasons and interesting ideas that are easy.
> I was trying to say something like: *normal topics that one knows (i.e., are familiar to the speaker, the speaker knows well) and interesting ideas that are easy*. But my question was actually if I should use *je* here (in contrast to *ngeDbogh meq motlh 'ej Dajbogh*).
But *meq*/topic/ and *qech* /idea/ are two different nouns. *ngeDbogh
meq motlh 'ej Dajbogh* is just about one noun: *meq.*
Another possibility, just to confuse you:
*motlhbogh meqmey 'ej luSovlu'bogh, ngeDbogh qechmey je 'ej Dajbogh
*/topics that are usual and known, and ideas that are easy and interesting/
The noun conjunction *je *joining *meymey* and *qechmey* follows the
final noun. But honestly, if you're trying to string together something
this long, it's probably better to think about how to break it into
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol