[tlhIngan Hol] {ngIq} again

[De'vID]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 13:56, D qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> De'vID:
> > {ngIq raQ - 150 QaS} "outposts cost 150 each"
> > {ngIq X} means "one X out of a bunch of Xs", so
> > {ngIq raQ} means "each X". In most cases,
> > {Hoch X} means the same thing
>
> So, in this case, if instead {ngIq raQ - 150 QaS} we had {Hoch raQ - 150
> QaS}, then the meaning would be exactly the same, right?
>

I don't remember the details of the game rules exactly, but I believe they
would mean the same thing, because the outposts referred to are on the same
game square (planet) and the only thing that matters for the cost is how
many there are, not their order.

I guess there's a possibility that with {Hoch}, someone who isn't up to
date on the grammar might misinterpret that as "all outposts as a group
cost 150" (which we know should be {Hoch raQmey}), but if they're not up on
the latest Klingon grammar (or at least the latest as of the time Klingon
Monopoly came out), they wouldn't understand a bunch of other things in
that game anyway. And common sense should rule out that interpretation.


> De'vID:
> > There's actually one place in the paq'batlh
> > where "one by one" wasn't translated using {ngIq}
>
> What's that place?
>

"Fek’lhr inspects them,
One by one,
With his deadly glance."
{QIt wa’ qa’ nuD veqlargh
QIt latlh qa’ nuD veqlargh
Hegh lurur mInDu’Daj}


> Anyway, to summarize all this, (and see if I understand this correctly)
> I'll write two examples:
>
> 1.
>
> {vabDot tlhIngan Hol ghItlhmey vIqonbogh laDchugh pagh, ngIq chuSwI''a'
> Sa'Hut vInobbe'}.
>
> The only thing that the the above can mean is "I don't give a single rat's
> ass, even if no one reads the Klingon that I write". Obviously, it cannot
> mean that "I don't give the ass of one rat, then I don't give the ass of
> the next one, then of the next one, and so on.. ."
>

I don't think idioms like "a single rat's ass" translates across languages.
Reading only the Klingon, I'm unable to understand the meaning. {ngIq}
always implies that there are (or could be) several of the thing under
discussion. {ngIq chuSwI''a' Sa'Hut vInobbe'} implies that there are
potentially multiple rat's asses you could've given. Are there? The
translation of {ngIq} depends on whether the sentence is referring to a
group of items treated identically, or a single item from that group
singled out for attention. Without already knowing your intention (and the
meaning of the English idiom), I can't rule out that this means "I do not
give each rat's ass one by one".


> Also, it would be weird to write the above with {Hoch} instead of {ngIq},
> since that would mean "I don't give each rat's ass", and perhaps it would
> be equally weird to use {wa'} instead of {ngIq} (although less weird that
> {Hoch}), since that would mean "I don't give one rat's ass". Although, I
> feel the {wa'} variation to be closer the the {ngIq} original. Perhaps the
> {ngIq} variation has more of an "emphatic" flavor.. Whatever.
>

I actually think this sense of "single" is {wa'}. You're not singling one
thing out of several for attention. You're saying that something is not
even worth so much as one of something.


> 2.
>
> {vIghro' jIH net jalchugh, 'elaDya'vaD ngIq yInwIj vInob}.
>
> The only thing this sentence can mean is "if I was a cat, I'd give each of
> my lives for Greece", with the meaning being "I give my first life for
> Greece, then I give the second, then the third, etc.."
>
> Obviously it cannot mean "if I was a cat, I'd give a single life for
> Greece", because I'm no jay' traitor. I'd give *all* my lives for Greece in
> a heartbeat.
>
> And for the same reason, I would never use {wa'} instead of {ngIq},
> because only a traitor cat would give only one of its' lives for its'
> country,
>

This sentence I understood. But it depends on the reader knowing that a cat
has multiple (traditionally nine) lives.


> Now, suppose I wrote:
>
> {vIghro' jIH net jalchugh, 'elaDya'vaD Hoch yInwIj vInob}
>
> This would obviously mean: "if I was a cat, I'd give each of my lives for
> Greece". But here, it isn't made clear that the way in which I'd give them,
> would be in succession, one after the other.
>

Right. It also means "each of my lives", but it lacks the sequentiality or
temporarlity of {ngIq yInwIj}.


> I hope my understanding is correct, because now that I think of this
> matter, after almost seven years of Klingon, and after having written my
> brains out in this so-called language, I've never used {ngIq} not even
> once. I hope that after this thread this will change.
>

I don't understand why you seem to feel the need to use every possible
construction that the language has available. But if you find yourself in a
situation that calls for {ngiq}, it's there.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220613/f158227a/attachment-0015.htm>