Recently, I saw in a sentence written by an expert the {-be'} used on {-lu'}. I won't say who wrote it, nor will I quote the exact sentence, since these details are of no importance. Suffice it to say, that it was on a transitive verb (not that if the verb was intransitive, it would make any difference). So, I was wondering how on earth, this sentence could be correct. If I wrote {Soplu'be'}, then what would this mean ? "not someone unspecified eats" ? And if I want to say "not someone unspecified eats", then why not just write {Sop (subject)} ? I can understand, writing {tu'lu'be'}, since {tu'lu'} is considered to be some kind of "fixed phrase". And I can understand too, that there are indications that a rover applies to the entire word, and not just whatever directly precedes it. But I find it wrong, someone based on the {tu'lu'be'}, and some vague indications with regards to the nature of the rover, to go on and write something like {Soplu'be'}. An expert should write as an expert; unless he/she write only for themselves. But if you are an expert, and are writing something which will be seen and read by other people, then you have to respect the readers and follow the damn rules. Expert is one thing, however *expert*qoq is another. The actions of the individual, determine the category to which he/she belongs. ~ nI'ghma
Am 23.01.2018 um 09:54 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
If I wrote {Soplu'be'}, then what would this mean ? "not someone unspecified eats" ? And if I want to say "not someone unspecified eats", then why not just write {Sop (subject)} ?
Because you can't say "subject" if the subject is not known, and that's what {-lu'} is used for. Compare these following phrases: {chab Sop targh} "The targ eats the pie" This is clear who ate it. {chab Soplu'} "Some unknown subject eats the pie" or "the pie is eaten". This can be used to describe a half pie standing on the table during the party: You say that it is being eaten, but you did not observe who ate it. It's kind of a general expression, "This is a pie that has been eaten by someone" {chab Sop vay'} "Somebody eats (or has eaten) the pie" Talking about the same pie on the party table. This could be used to describe an observed action: You see "somebody" eting the pie. Even in past tense, you may say "someone ate the pie". But still that's a definite subject, it's different from {-lu'}. Adding a negation turns {chab Soplu'} into {chab Soplu'be'}, negating the entire phrase [Soplu']. You say this when sou discover that the pie on the table is left untouched. Nobody tried from it. --- Next, we may discuss the difference in the word order, hence {-be'lu'}. This is certaily dependant on the verb, for instance look at {legh}. When negating {legh} you get a verb that can be something like "being blind". I understand {leghbe'lu'} as "one is doing some not-seeing" as opposed to {leghlu'be'} "the act of seeing does not happen". This actually works with {Sop} as well, when you think of {Sopbe'} a verb of refusing to eat (like in a hunger strike) or if somebody wants to loose weight. Go to a weight atchers meeting, then you can say {naDev Sopbe'lu'}. The cake standing there has been {Soplu'be'}. THAT's the difference. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
jIH:
If I wrote {Soplu'be'}, then what would this mean ? "not someone unspecified eats" ? And if I want to say "not someone unspecified eats", then why not just write {Sop (subject)} ? lieven: Because you can't say "subject" if the subject is not known, and that's what {-lu'} is used for. Compare these following phrases:
Yes, this is what I meant to say, but it got screwed up in the english translation. Indeed I meant to say, that if we want to write "someone eats", and that someone is not unspecified (therefore we know who it is), then we will write that he (the subject) does the {Sop}. We won't write {Soplu'be'}. lieven:
Next, we may discuss the difference in the word order, hence {-be'lu'}. This is certaily dependant on the verb, for instance look at {legh}. When negating {legh} you get a verb that can be something like "being blind". I understand {leghbe'lu'} as "one is doing some not-seeing" as opposed to {leghlu'be'} "the act of seeing does not happen".
I'm afraid I can't understand this. {leghlu'} = someone unspecified sees {leghbe'lu'} = someone unspecified does not see {leghlu'be'} = not someone unspecified sees (someone sees, but that someone isn't unspecified). But if that is the case, if the one who sees isn't unspecified, then why not mention him ? And we come to the heart of the problem.. lieven:
{leghlu'be'} "the act of seeing does not happen"
According to your translation, the {-be'} doesn't negate only the {-lu'}; it negates the entire {leghlu'}. And I don't understand.. On what canon is this interpretation based ? On the {tu'lu'be'} only ? Please, don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to quarrel with you, since I respect you deeply. Let alone the fact, that it wasn't you, the one who wrote the sentence, which sparked this thread. But I just think, that you're trying too hard to justify the erroneous choice of another, to use {-lu'be'}, instead of {-be'lu'}. lieven:
The cake standing there has been {Soplu'be'}
Again, here I understand "someone ate the cake, and that someone isn't unspecified". ~ nI'ghma On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 23.01.2018 um 09:54 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
If I wrote {Soplu'be'}, then what would this mean ? "not someone unspecified eats" ? And if I want to say "not someone unspecified eats", then why not just write {Sop (subject)} ?
Because you can't say "subject" if the subject is not known, and that's what {-lu'} is used for. Compare these following phrases:
{chab Sop targh} "The targ eats the pie" This is clear who ate it.
{chab Soplu'} "Some unknown subject eats the pie" or "the pie is eaten".
This can be used to describe a half pie standing on the table during the party: You say that it is being eaten, but you did not observe who ate it. It's kind of a general expression, "This is a pie that has been eaten by someone"
{chab Sop vay'} "Somebody eats (or has eaten) the pie"
Talking about the same pie on the party table. This could be used to describe an observed action: You see "somebody" eting the pie. Even in past tense, you may say "someone ate the pie". But still that's a definite subject, it's different from {-lu'}.
Adding a negation turns {chab Soplu'} into {chab Soplu'be'}, negating the entire phrase [Soplu']. You say this when sou discover that the pie on the table is left untouched. Nobody tried from it.
---
Next, we may discuss the difference in the word order, hence {-be'lu'}. This is certaily dependant on the verb, for instance look at {legh}. When negating {legh} you get a verb that can be something like "being blind". I understand {leghbe'lu'} as "one is doing some not-seeing" as opposed to {leghlu'be'} "the act of seeing does not happen".
This actually works with {Sop} as well, when you think of {Sopbe'} a verb of refusing to eat (like in a hunger strike) or if somebody wants to loose weight. Go to a weight atchers meeting, then you can say {naDev Sopbe'lu'}. The cake standing there has been {Soplu'be'}. THAT's the difference.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Summary before: I'm not saying that I'm right; This is my opinion. Am 23.01.2018 um 11:50 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
translation. Indeed I meant to say, that if we want to write "someone eats", and that someone is not unspecified (therefore we know who it is), then we will write that he (the subject) does the {Sop}. We won't write {Soplu'be'}.
Yes, {Soplu' Subject} doesnt make sense. If you know the subject, it's not indefinite. We also all agree that {Soplu'} and {Sop vay'} are very close in meaning. A big difference can bee seen in the english translation, which is used in TKD, where Okrand used passive voice: "Is eaten" vs. "someone eats".
lieven: I'm afraid I can't understand this. {leghlu'} = someone unspecified sees {leghbe'lu'} = someone unspecified does not see {leghlu'be'} = not someone unspecified sees (someone sees, but that someone isn't unspecified). But if that is the case, if the one who sees isn't unspecified, then why not mention him ?
You do not understand because you try to translate literally, word by word, like a computer, repeating the suffixes like numbers. That doesn't work in Klingon.
lieven:
{leghlu'be'} "the act of seeing does not happen"
According to your translation, the {-be'} doesn't negate only the {-lu'}; it negates the entire {leghlu'}. And I don't understand.. On what canon is this interpretation based ? On the {tu'lu'be'} only ?
No, my interpretation is not based only on the {tu'lu'be'}-example. I don't focus on the rule that -be' negates the preceding suffix, I regard the whole thing and think of how -lu' changes the meaning of the subject. Asking differently: How could one negate an indefinite subject?
Please, don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to quarrel with you,
No problem, I enjoy a good discussion and I can live with being pointed at my errors.
But I just think, that you're trying too hard to justify the erroneous choice of another, to use {-lu'be'}, instead of {-be'lu'}.
I would not try to explain someone else's mistakes, unless I think I'd do it the same way.
lieven:
The cake standing there has been {Soplu'be'}
Again, here I understand "someone ate the cake, and that someone isn't unspecified".
Honestly, I do not known on what canon or rule my assumption is based, maybe it's just my feeling - I think that "Sprachgefühl" even is an English word. There are several examples with {-lu'}, and each of them combined with {-be'} make me see them as the negation of the verb, not the suffix. {batlh Daqawlu'be'} "You are not remembered with honor" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On 23 January 2018 at 12:39, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
There are several examples with {-lu'}, and each of them combined with {-be'} make me see them as the negation of the verb, not the suffix.
I may be wrong, but I think there are no canon examples with {-lu'be'} except for {tu'lu'be'}. I'd avoid {-lu'be'}. My feeling is that it's technically ungrammatical, but would be understood as slightly sloppy speech. -- De'vID
On 1/23/2018 3:54 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
But I find it wrong, someone based on the {tu'lu'be'}, and some vague indications with regards to the nature of the rover, to go on and write something like {Soplu'be'}.
An expert should write as an expert; unless he/she write only for themselves. But if you are an expert, and are writing something which will be seen and read by other people, then you have to respect the readers and follow the damn rules.
I've explained this multiple times. The rovers *-be'* and *-qu'* do not always apply just to the single, immediately preceding element of the verb. Sometimes they get applied to entire verbs or even entire sentences. This is not explained in TKD; it simply shows up in canonical sentences. *Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe' */Eat everything or you will die without honor./ (PK) This doesn't mean /if you do not eat everything you will fail to die honorably./ The *-be'* applies to the entire phrase *batlh bIHegh*/you will die honorably./ There are other examples I have cited before; I don't have the time to find them again. Suffice it to say that *Soplu'be'* doesn't mean /definite subject eats;/ it means /one does not eat./ As for why you would say that instead of *Sopbe'lu',* I don't think there's a difference. Lieven tried to make one, but I don't believe Klingon gets that specific with its suffix ordering. At best, complaining that *Soplu'be'* doesn't follow the "immediately preceding element" rule marks you as a grammatical curmudgeon, and does not improve anyone's comprehension. *yIleS!* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:54 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently, I saw in a sentence written by an expert the {-be'} used on {-lu'}.
I won't say who wrote it, nor will I quote the exact sentence, since these details are of no importance.
Suffice it to say, that it was on a transitive verb (not that if the verb was intransitive, it would make any difference).
So, I was wondering how on earth, this sentence could be correct.
If I wrote {Soplu'be'}, then what would this mean ? "not someone unspecified eats" ? And if I want to say "not someone unspecified eats", then why not just write {Sop (subject)} ?
This would only work out if negating {-lu'} negated the "unspecified" part, which is not the only possible interpretation of {-lu'be'}. There is no official interpretation of this combination yet. But based on the way people use it, it seems that they often interpet {-lu'be'} as, and intend it to mean, something like "nobody (but in a vaguer, more unspecified sort of way than 'pagh')". Usually, this ends up conveying the same basic idea as {wotbe'lu'}: something doesn't happen and it's not important or known who's not doing it. I wouldn't say it's out-and-out wrong, because it's never been forbidden explicitly, and I don't want to assume that some novel combination of suffixes is ungrammatical simply because we don't know precisely what it means. But it is still undefined.
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel