puq neH ghaH he is only a child But why can't it mean too "he is the only child", as in "the only child of two parents"? Similarly, we have the {jonta' neH} for "only the engine". But why can't it mean too "the only engine"? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
To be honest, when I read {puq neH ghaH} I saw, “He wants a child.” wa’ puq ghaj qaytu’pu’. [Does this really need {neH}?] latlh puq Hutlh qaytu’pu’. qongmeS Hutlh. As for the “only engine”, I’ll let the canon experts reply before I say yet another wrong thing. If the canon actually is {matHa’, DoS jonta’ neH}, it’s already weird, since there’s no verb, unless the real translation is a clipped “I want the engine of the target." pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jul 4, 2022, at 8:48 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
puq neH ghaH he is only a child
But why can't it mean too "he is the only child", as in "the only child of two parents"?
Similarly, we have the {jonta' neH} for "only the engine". But why can't it mean too "the only engine"?
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jonta' mob -- ghunchu'wI'
On Jul 4, 2022, at 7:48 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
puq neH ghaH he is only a child
But why can't it mean too "he is the only child", as in "the only child of two parents"?
Similarly, we have the {jonta' neH} for "only the engine". But why can't it mean too "the only engine"?
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ghunchu'wI':
jonta' mob
This is very interesting. Could this mean that we could say {puq mob} for "only child"? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
This is very interesting. Could this mean that we could say {puq mob} for "only child"?
I think it would be highly contextual. When talking about the constitution of a family, talking about the {puq mob} might well refer to an only child. However, if you were to say something like {wa' puqDaj mob ngeHta' joH'a'}, I think it could just as well be interpreted as "The LORD sent one of his children, and no one else." I don't think there is sufficient canonical backing to make any far-reaching conclusions, but the one canonical discussion of {X mob} that I'm aware of concerns the story where ghunchu'wI' ordered {bIQ neH} at a restaurant, and Marc Okrand suggested that what he really wanted was {bIQ mob}: https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/July/msg00127.html In this case, it would not make sense to interpret {X mob} as "the only existing X", as that would mean ordering the only water the restaurant had. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 4:32:55 PM To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {neH} as in "the only" ghunchu'wI':
jonta' mob
This is very interesting. Could this mean that we could say {puq mob} for "only child"? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Mon., Jul. 4, 2022, 14:48 D qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
puq neH ghaH he is only a child
I think your English translation is misleading. {neH} after a verb trivialises it. In your sentence, the pronoun is acting as a verb. "He is only a child", in the sense of "He is merely a child", would be {puq ghaH neH}. {neH} after a noun has a restrictive sense. Consider that {yaS neH} means "only the officer", "the officer alone". {puq neH ghaH} means "He is only a child" in the sense of "He is a child alone", "He is a child (and nothing else)". Which meaning do you intend by "he is only a child"? But why can't it mean too "he is the only child", as in "the only child of
two parents"?
Because, following a noun, {neH} means "only" in the sense of "only X (and nothing else)", and not "the only X (and there are no other Xs)". For example, {yaS neH yIHoH} means "kill only the officer" (i.e., there are multiple people, and the order is to kill the one who is an officer, but not the others). It does not mean "kill the only officer". (Of course, if there's a group of people only one of which is an officer, the effect is the same.) You *can* express the concept of "the only child of two parents" using {neH}: {wa' puq neH lughaj chaH} "they have only the one child", "they have one child alone", "they have one child (and nothing else)". Similarly, we have the {jonta' neH} for "only the engine". But why can't it
mean too "the only engine"?
Because of the meaning of {neH}. -- De'vID
loghaD:
I don't think there is sufficient canonical backing to make any far-reaching conclusions
Yes, indeed. After going through this thread again today, I realize that it's difficult to draw conclusions from just one incident where 'oqranD commented on the use of {mob}. De'vID:
{neH} after a noun has a restrictive sense. Consider that {yaS neH} means "only the officer", "the officer alone". {puq neH ghaH} means "He is only a child" in the sense of "He is a child alone", "He is a child (and nothing else)". Which meaning do you intend by "he is only a child"?
I was trying to express "he is the only child", as in "the only child of two parents"; but I realize now that this meaning cannot be expressed by writing {puq neH ghaH}, because -as you explained- this would mean "'He is only a child' in the sense of 'He is a child alone', 'He is a child (and nothing else)'." Anyway, thank you ghunchu'wI', loghaD, and De'vID for sharing your thoughts. I'll go ahead now, and for ease of reference, copy-paste the previously mentioned message. https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/July/msg00127.html {neH} vs. {mob} (was: nuq bop bom: 'ay' cha'vatlh cha'maH cha': 'omwI'pu') ********** Message Starts ********** From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> ghunchu'wI':
I once ordered {bIQ neH} to drink at a restaurant. Marc Okrand, sitting across the table from me, suggested that I really meant {bIQ mob}. That would have been proper if I were not having anything else. As I did intend to order food as well, however, my usage was correct. I wanted "mere water" as opposed to "water alone".
Is the distinction here between "plain water (with nothing in the water, i.e., no ice or lemon slice or carbonation)" (= "I'll have a simple water") vs. "just water" (= "I'll have water and no other food or drink")? {neH} trivialises the action when it follows a verb, but its effect on a noun seems to be one of restriction rather than trivialisation. {yaS neH yIHoH} means "kill only the officer (and no one else)", not "kill the mere officer". Similarly, {jonta' neH yIqIp} is "hit only the engine (and nothing else)". I'd understand {bIQ neH yIqem} to mean "bring only water (and nothing else)". That is, among the possible things you could bring me, bring only the water, and bring nothing but the water. This is different from "bring me plain water". OTOH, I wouldn't understand {bIQ mob} immediately as "plain water" unless someone explained it to me. I can see how "water alone" might mean water with nothing in it, but I could just as easily have interpreted that as water with nothing else (outside the water) accompanying it. I think I would've said {bIQ nIt} for "plain water" (probably just because of the similarity between {nIt} and "neat"). But if Maltz said to me, "Klingons say {bIQ mob} for 'plain unadorned water'," I'd accept it without hesitation. In many restaurants, though, the waiter takes the drink order separately from the food order, so either {bIQ neH} or {bIQ mob} would probably be understood as meaning you want just water (for your drink, and in contrast to other drinks or fancy water) while leaving you the option to also order food without contradicting yourself. The relevant excerpt, from TKD 5.4: <begin excerpt> {neH} <only, merely, just> Unlike the other adverbials, it follows the verb which it modifies. The semantic effect is one of trivializing the action. {qama' vIqIppu' neH} <I merely hit the prisoner.> ({qama'} <prisoner>, {vIqIppu'} <I hit him/her>) {Duj yIQotlh neH} <Just disable the ship!> ({Duj} <ship, vessel>, {yIQotlh} <disable it!>) The use of {neH} in the preceding sentence implies that the ship is to be disabled, but not damaged further. Also unlike the other adverbials, {neH} can follow a noun. In such cases, it means <only, alone>. {yaS neH} <only the officer, the officer alone> {jonta' neH} <only the engine> <end excerpt> -- De'vID ********** Message Ends ********** -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
ghunchu’wI’ had a relevant conversation with Okrand: (ghunchu'wI', 7/16/2012): I once ordered {bIQ neH} to drink at a restaurant. Marc Okrand, sitting across the table from me, suggested that I really meant {bIQ mob}. That would have been proper if I were not having anything else. As I did intend to order food as well, however, my usage was correct. I wanted 'mere water' as opposed to “water alone”. FYI {mob} “be alone” in canon: Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQqu' Hegh wanI' Death is an experience best shared. (TKW) mob qeylIS ngeng HeHDaq yIt And Kahless was alone walking along the shore (PB) (Lieven, qepHom 2017, 11/2017): An odd number is {mI' mob}. An even number is {mI' mobHa'}. And don’t forget the adverbial {nIteb} “alone, acting alone, on one's own”: jagh DajeymeH nIteb yISuvrup To defeat the enemy, be ready to fight alone. PK nIteb SuvnIS DevwI' A leader must stand alone ("A leader must fight alone").TKW nIteb DujlIj yIchIj Navigate your vessel alone. TKW nIteb Qob qaD jup 'e' chaw'be' SuvwI' A warrior does not let a friend face danger alone. TKW nIteb peghoS, HatlhDaq peleng to go their separate ways, and travel the lands. PB nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return PB jachDI' qa'rol yIwuq | nIteb bIwuqnIS | ngeD Qu'vam Decide when the {qa'rol} cries, The choice is yours, And it is obvious. PB nIteb 'atlantIq bIQ'a' chIqbogh 'orwI' wa'DIch mojta' he became the first pilot to cross the Atlantic Ocean solo (NASM, Spirit of St. Louis) -- Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of De'vID Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 4:41 PM On Mon., Jul. 4, 2022, 14:48 D qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: puq neH ghaH he is only a child I think your English translation is misleading. {neH} after a verb trivialises it. In your sentence, the pronoun is acting as a verb. "He is only a child", in the sense of "He is merely a child", would be {puq ghaH neH}. {neH} after a noun has a restrictive sense. Consider that {yaS neH} means "only the officer", "the officer alone". {puq neH ghaH} means "He is only a child" in the sense of "He is a child alone", "He is a child (and nothing else)". Which meaning do you intend by "he is only a child"? But why can't it mean too "he is the only child", as in "the only child of two parents"? Because, following a noun, {neH} means "only" in the sense of "only X (and nothing else)", and not "the only X (and there are no other Xs)". For example, {yaS neH yIHoH} means "kill only the officer" (i.e., there are multiple people, and the order is to kill the one who is an officer, but not the others). It does not mean "kill the only officer". (Of course, if there's a group of people only one of which is an officer, the effect is the same.) You *can* express the concept of "the only child of two parents" using {neH}: {wa' puq neH lughaj chaH} "they have only the one child", "they have one child alone", "they have one child (and nothing else)". Similarly, we have the {jonta' neH} for "only the engine". But why can't it mean too "the only engine"? Because of the meaning of {neH}. -- De'vID
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
D qunen'oS -
De'vID -
Felix Malmenbeck -
Steven Boozer -
Will Martin