[tlhIngan Hol] Some short questions

[SuStel]

On 9/22/2021 4:34 PM, luis.chaparro at web.de wrote:
> SuStel:
>
>> I haven't done more than skim the Klingonska page about these things. What does it say that TKD doesn't?
> As I understand it, these informations aren't*directly*  stated in TKD:
>
> - *Adjectival verbs are stressed as verbs.*

Adjectival verbs are just verbs, so this doesn't say anything we didn't 
already know.


> - *Nominalized verbs (nouns created using suffixes /-wI'/ and /-ghach/) are stressed as nouns.*

"A noun formed by adding *-wI'* to a verb is a regular noun." So this 
also doesn't say anything we weren't already told.

I agree that the case for *-ghach* is a little less explicit, since it 
was part of the addendum and not included in the ways to create complex 
nouns, but a verb ending in *-ghach* is clearly a complex noun in the 
same way that a verb ending in *-wI'* is a complex noun.

However, since *-ghach* has no glottal stop to draw stress, and since by 
definition a word with *-ghach* /must**/have at least two syllables 
before the *-ghach,* I agree that the question of how to stress it may 
become important. I don't know if the Klingonska page says anything 
specifically about this in the case of *-ghach.*


> -*in compound nouns, only the last syllable of the /last stem/ is stressed*

I agree that TKD doesn't clearly state that its noun stress rules apply 
only to simple nouns. On the other hand, the exact definition of /simple 
noun/ is not entirely clear to me. The examples given are monosyllabic, 
and section 3.2.3 says that many polysyllabic nouns in Klingon are 
complex nouns that aren't necessarily compound nouns, and have elements 
that can't be analyzed. The given example is *'ejDo',* and it is 
theorized that *Do'* was an Old Klingon word for /space vessel./ So, can 
we say that *Ha'DIbaH,* for example, is a simple noun? What if it 
consists of older elements that we can no longer analyze? That would 
make it a complex noun. And if a word like *Ha'DIbaH* is a complex noun, 
but if we're supposed to understand that the stress rules apply to it, 
then we must assume the stress rules apply to complex nouns generally, 
and that includes compound nouns.


> - And speaking of verbs,*the last syllable of the stem is stressed*  (that's why I asked about monosyllabic verbs).

The stress rules are clearly talking about monosyllabic verb stems, 
which is nearly all of them. If the Klingonska page says that the last 
syllable of the stem of polysyllabic verbs is stressed, I see no source 
for this information.

>>> As an aside: When TKD says*two syllables in a row*  it doesn't mean*adjacent syllables*, right?
>> Yes, that's what it means, provided the syllables are part of the same word.
>   
> Ok, I'm asking because on Klingonska we read about nouns that */If there are syllables ending in glottal stop,/ those are stressed (and stressed equally).* So*in a row*  doesn't mean one inmediately after the other, does it? (maybe I'm having problems with my English here). I mean, *Ha'DIbaHmo'* is stressed on *Ha'* and on *mo'*, right?

"Two syllables in a row" means two syllables next to each other. TKD 
does not tell us what to do in the case of two syllables having a 
glottal stop that aren't in a row. For that, I fall back to the general 
rule, "if, however, a syllable ending in *'* is present, it is usually 
stressed instead." Since that would lead to two equally stressed 
syllables, that would mean either the "in a row" is meaningless, that 
both syllables are stressed but one is stressed more than the other (and 
we're not told which is which), or that something else entirely happens 
in this case and we're not told what.


>> Unknown, but almost all verbs are monosyllabic. There are, what, only three or four exceptions?
> I'm wondering now if the verbs*He'So'* or *lo'laH*  are stressed, as Klingonska says, on the last syllable of the stem?

Personally, I stress both syllables of *He'So'* and the *lo'* in *lo'laH.*

>>> Ok! Just a question: The sentences I wrote (*ghItlhwI' 'op paq*, *'op ghItlhwI' paq*) are not clear, but are they grammatical? Or should I avoid such constructions?
>> They're not sentences; they're noun phrases. They are clear, but they are not as distinct as the English translations you're giving them.
> Yes, of course, sorry! I meant noun phrases. So, as I understand it: the exact rules for modifiers of noun-noun-constructions are not clear, but my noun phrases aren't ungrammatical

They aren't clearly ungrammatical. As I said, we have limited 
information on words like this modifying noun-noun constructions.


>   and, if context is clear, I can use them.

No one can claim they're wrong and prove it.


> Anyway,*ghItlhwI' 'op paq*  cannot mean*the book/s of some writers*. For that, the *'op* should go before the *ghItlhwI'*. At least, that's clear, right?

Yes.


>>> So, formally I should always repeat information (*wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vISoppu'*) or maybe look for another word (wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vIwIvpu'*)?
>> Yes, repetition is fine in Klingon. You might include a je at the end of those to tie the ideas together.
> Sorry, I don't understand exactly what you mean with including a*je*  (*je*  meaning*too*?).

*wa'Hu' chab vISoppu'; DaHjaj naH vISoppu' je.* /I ate pie yesterday. I 
also ate vegetables today./

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210922/ef24c16a/attachment-0015.htm>