@qunnoq [...]
I feel that even if it is legal to use three adjectives on a single noun, then the resulting sentence would be rather long and perhaps difficult to follow.
Yes it makes sense, it does get complicated after a bit, and actually we seldom have more than 2-3 adjectives in French as well. Plus, now that I think further on it, a Klingon may be more likely to just select 1 main attribute - whichever is most relevant - in a sentence to cut straight to the point. mughwI' 2016-09-30 15:07 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
always -until now-, I never thought of using more than two adjectives on the same noun.
why ? because somehow, I had gotten the impression that the maximum number is two.
obviously I was wrong, however I feel that even if it is legal to use three adjectives on a single noun, then the resulting sentence would be rather long and perhaps difficult to follow.
even in english (and greek if anyone wonders..), you would say "I see a hungry white cat", but you wouldn't say " I see a funny hungry white cat". It wouldn't be grammatically wrong, but it just wouldn't "sound nice". you would prefer to say something like "I see a funny white cat, which is hungry". so, why not follow 'arHa's advice and break down your klingon sentence into 2 smaller ones.
the goal in klingon shouldn't be long, complex sentences; you should rather strive to express yourself in small ones, which the reader is easily able to follow.
anyway, as americans say "this is my 2 cents on this subject"
qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'
On 30 Sep 2016 12:46 p.m., "Aurélie Demonchaux" < demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks all for your reply! (Hoch tujangta’mo’ qatlho’!)
*@**Quvar valer 'utlh*
Savan!
Your message marked as KLBC is directed to one person only, so it may be more correct to say {qavan}, but that's really nitpicking ;-)
jIyaj, Dochmey mach jISaH je!
What I actually wanted to say is that you speak so much Klingon already, that you are not a true "beginner".
qatlho’ :) ’ach Dochmey law’ tu’lu’ ’e’ wej vIghojta’.
PS: if possible, deactivate autoformatting for apostrophes.
qaghwI' vIvevmo’, DaH <Alt + 0146> vIlo’ ’e’ vIwaH.
*@Voragh:*
qu’! pab lo’mey cho’aghta’mo’ qatlho’ :)
*@’arHa:*
“jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.” I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
Yes it makes sense too. But in this case, wouldn’t it shift the focus of the text?
1/ “jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh”
I feel that here the focus of the sentence is more on the description of the officer that I’m seeing, with his 1st three attributes <jaq>, <maw’>, <woch> on an equal footing, and <Qup> being considered the most essential attribute, since it’s directly added after <yaS>.
We can show the highlight as below:
<I see a *young officer*, (who is) tall, bold but crazy.>
The way I interpret things (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that, in Klingon, if we put a normal adjective just after the noun, then it would be considered as the noun’s main / defining attribute, and the relative clauses would then describe secondary attributes.
Following this assumption, if we shuffle it around a bit, we could insist more on the fact that the main attribute of the officer is, for example, being “tall” instead of “young”:
“jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej Qupbogh yaS woch vIlegh”
<I see a *tall officer*, (who is) young, bold but crazy.>
or if we want to put absolutely all attributes on an equal footing, then we use –bogh everywhere, so the main object of the sentence is no longer a tall or young officer (who is bold but crazy…), but just “an officer” (who is young, tall etc):
“Qupbogh ’ej wochbogh ’ej jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh yaS vIlegh”
<I see a young, tall, bold but crazy *officer*.>
2/ yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'
Here there are 2 statements so each statement highlights a different focus point.
- yaS Qup vIlegh : focus on “I see an officer” (the “core” part of the action, with no descriptive element) - jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu': the description of the officer that I see, with an emphasis on “… but he is really crazy”
So it seems to bring a different nuance from what I'd suggested.
Sorry if I over-analyze it though! (I like to go into the details, and this is also really important in translation) Let me know what you think :)
Also, next time, maybe it’s best if I don’t use the KLBC anymore, so everyone is free to join the conversation directly if they want.
~mughwI'
2016-09-30 0:35 GMT+02:00 John R. Harness <cartweel@gmail.com>:
Hi all --
Lieven: "And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why."
Actually I don't know why, other than that's how people do it. Maybe because it starts to produce parsing errors?
mughwI': “jaqbogh ‘ach maw’bogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.”
I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
'arHa
--
Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Lieven:
And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why.
Aurélie Demonchaux:
Is there a canon reference somewhere listing several adjectives linked to the same noun? As in:
While we're waiting for the BG here are the references you requested:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (KCD)
SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh The tea that is {SuD} and light. (KGT) (i.e. light green tea)
Suto'vo'qor botlhDaq pe'vIl joqchu'taH quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ [translation unavailable] (PB)
This last example is controversial so I wouldn't advise using it:
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
It's the only known example of the pattern {X-bogh Y-bogh je NOUN} -- possibly because it's a song lyric and the translation had to fit the meter.
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org