[tlhIngan Hol] How to say *Doctor Who*, *do*, restrictiveness of adjectives and some other short questions

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Jul 22 12:09:49 PDT 2022

On 7/22/2022 1:13 PM, luis.chaparro at web.de wrote:
>>> Yes, I know, I was rather asking if *vIlaDpu'* would be a correct option if I didn't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, and just wanted to speak about the action being completed (I guess this question makes more sense from a Spanish perspective, sorry).
>> When we say the perfective means "completed," we don't just mean "no longer happening"; we mean that the action is being looked back upon as a whole action, without referencing how it occurred over time. All we know is that the speaker is establishing a viewpoint on the action from a time after it is over in order to look back on it as a completed whole.
> Yes, sorry, maybe I didn't express myself correctly in English. My question is: *'ach tetlhvam QInmey Daj vIlaDpu'* is also possible if I don't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, but rather present it as a completed whole, isn't it? I mean, it's not wrong in this context.

It sets up a different viewpoint, yes. If you say *vIlaDtaH,* you're 
putting your listener in the middle of those previous months. If you say 
*vIlaDpu',* you're putting your listener /after/ those months, looking 
back on them. I don't know that I would call this emphasis. In this case 
it doesn't matter too much which you use, because your next sentence 
establishes an entirely new time context with *DaH,* so the previous 
time context of the previous months and the previous viewpoint go out 
the window.

>>> For uncountable nouns the meaning is obviously singular, right? *'op bIQ* = *some water*.
>> I don't know if I'd call that singular or plural since it's an uncountable noun.
> That's a good point. But *'op bIQ* is anyway grammatical and translates into *some water*, right?

Yes, I believe we can use *'op* with uncountable nouns.

>>> That leads me to another question: When acting as a pronoun in the sense of *to be*, is the position of the question word relevant? Because we have the canon *Dochvam nuq* but also *nuq mI'lIj*. But personal pronouns always come after the noun.
>> I don't think it matters as far as any canonical explanation we've been given. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal pronouns always come after the noun."
> I mean, in the sense of *to be* the pronoun always follows the noun: *mI'lIj 'oH* (*It's your number*). You cannot say *'oH mI'lIj* for *It's your number*. So I was wondering why the canonical example says *nuq mI'lIj* and not *mI'lIj nuq*, since we have been told that these question words work like pronouns in questions with *to be* in the English translations. Or am I missing something?

It's hard to tell whether something is Clipped Klingon or not. I'm 
afraid I cannot answer your question definitively. I do not know that 
*Dochvam nuq* is substituting for *Dochvam 'oH* or if *nuq* is acting 
like a verb in its own right here. Or if it's Clipped Klingon for 
*Dochvam 'oH nuq'e'* (there are some canonical examples of this). I do 
not know whether *nuq mI'lIj* is Clipped Klingon for *nuq 'oH 
mI'lIj'e'.* All I can tell you is that we've seen it both ways, and so 
far as I know we don't have enough information to confidently analyze 
the grammar.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220722/3e38b6a9/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list