[tlhIngan Hol] "Seasons of Love" in Klingon / And two grammatical questions

[Will Martin]

> On Jan 12, 2022, at 6:08 AM, luis.chaparro at web.de wrote:
> 
> Thank you again for your detailed answer, Iikka!
> 
>> If we assume that a comma should not be placed inside a noun-noun construct, {be', Huch, paq je} with two commas would be unambiguous. However, {be' Huch, paq je} would still be ambiguous. If woman has both money and the book, the comma must be between {Huch} and {paq}, as they are the two conjoined nouns. If we talk about the woman's money and the book, the conjoined nouns are {be' Huch} and {paq}, and the comma is still in the same location.
> 
> I understand your point, but (as a beginner) I was actually thinking on a different possibility:
> 
> *be' Huch paq je* - the woman's money and book

While there’s a logic behind this, you are implying that no comma means two different things here. No comma between two nouns in a noun-noun construction, and no comma between two nouns that would normally have a comma between them in a noun-noun-conjunction construction, if such a convention exists (and it doesn’t). So the lack of commas between {be’} and {Huch} means something different than the lack of commas between {Huch} and {paq}. Really? And you expect us to figure that out on the fly?

We’d just as well start using hyphens. I mean, we call it a “noun-noun” construction. We don’t call it a “noun noun” construction. So why don’t we say {be’-Huch paq je} instead of {be’ Huch paq je}?

Meanwhile, I think it would be clearer to say {be’ Huch be’ paq je} than to say {be’ Huch paq je} if what you want is “The woman’s money and book”. I think it would be remarkably and dramatically more clear. Why? Because it is clearer whether it is written or spoken, and this writing system is supposed to be a representation of spoken Klingon. So, why not favor a version that would be as clear spoken as written? You can’t hear commas.

> *be' Huch, paq je* - the woman's money and the book
> *be', Huch paq je* - the woman and the money's book
> *be', Huch, paq je* - the woman, the money and the book

I like this stylistic use of comma, though I do not believe it is a convention that has as yet been adopted. Perhaps we should adopt it.

It does assume that verbal Klingon pauses between conjoined nouns. I’m not sure this is the case. It would be nice if it were the case. I’m not sure there is any canon to confirm this.

> Of course, in most cases context will clarify, but I would like to know if there is some kind of general consensus on how to use (human) punctuation, in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.

I’m less sure that in most cases context WILL clarify than it is that we SAY that context clarifies because it COULD clarify and we are lazy and would prefer that it clarifies than have to go to the effort of explicitly saying something to clarify what we mean.

Most of the time that people get irritated by me, it’s when I suggest methods for expressing things, INCLUDING the context to make things clear.

> Thank you!
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org