Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:04:06 +0100 From: André M?ller <esperantist@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Bullets in Klingon
On a side note, note that there's a prefix missing in the title. "Boys like>you" should be {SoH nIrurbogh loDpu'}.
So pjrases with *rurbogh* (or any kind of -bogh) need an agreement prefix if it's not just a third-person subject with a third-person direct object? I never thought about that, perhaps because I thought of it more as an adjective (albeit a prepositive adjective rather than the usual postpositive stative verb) rather than as a verb. Good catch!
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:29 AM James Landau via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On a side note, note that there's a prefix missing in the title. "Boys like you" should be {SoH nIrurbogh loDpu'}.
So pjrases with *rurbogh* (or any kind of -bogh) need an agreement prefix if it's not just a third-person subject with a third-person direct object?
It needs a prefix that agrees even when the subject and object are both third-person. It just happens that in those cases (excepting plural subject and singular object) that the prefix is null. -- De'vID
Again, in the spirit of bringing up topics that might be useful to anyone new with the language, there is only one (okay, two) exception(s) to the rule that all Klingon verbs always need a prefix (including the null prefix, when appropriate). The one exception is that SOMETIMES a verb with {-meH} doesn’t need a prefix. The issue here is the infinitive. When we say in English, “to learn”, we’re not telling you anything about a subject or an object. We’re cutting back to the essential meaning of the verb. Klingon doesn’t do that, except when using a {-meH} to describe a noun, when the verb with {-meH} doesn’t have a subject or object, as in {ghojmeH taj} — an “in-order-to-learn knife” or a “learning knife”. The purpose of the knife is for someone to use it in order “to learn”. Verbs with {-meH} always precede whatever it is they are modifying, whether it’s a noun or a complete sentence. This infinitive (no prefix) potential for verbs with {-meH} only works for describing nouns, not complete sentences. When verbs with {-meH} describe whole sentences, they always form their own complete clauses, including an explicit or implied subject and where appropriate, an object. Sometimes verbs with {-meH} describing nouns may need a subject and optionally an object in order to satisfactorily modify the noun it is describing. When that is the case, the verb with {-meH} always needs an appropriate prefix. {Duj lu‘ormeH ‘orwI’pu’ chaw’ poQlu’.} “An in-order-that-pilots-operate-a-ship permit is required.” This sentence would be incorrect without the {lu-}. In every other case, without known exception, all Klingon verbs always need the appropriate prefix… … except for the phrase {tu’lu’} in examples like {naDev tlhInganpu’ tu’lu’,}, which should be {naDev tlhInganpu’ lutu’lu’} to be grammatically correct, and it’s not wrong to include the {lu-}, but there are so many canon examples without it, where it would be grammatically required that it is a known exception to the general rule about prefixes. Consider it to be like “who / whom” in English. A remarkable number of English speakers never use “whom”, always replacing it with “who”, even when “whom” is more grammatically correct. This is like that. You could complain about people using {tu’lu’} where {lutu’lu’} is grammatically correct, but you won’t get much support from the huddled masses. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jan 31, 2023, at 7:39 AM, De'vID via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:29 AM James Landau via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org>> wrote:
On a side note, note that there's a prefix missing in the title. "Boys like you" should be {SoH nIrurbogh loDpu'}.
So pjrases with *rurbogh* (or any kind of -bogh) need an agreement prefix if it's not just a third-person subject with a third-person direct object?
It needs a prefix that agrees even when the subject and object are both third-person. It just happens that in those cases (excepting plural subject and singular object) that the prefix is null.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/31/2023 12:29 AM, James Landau via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
So pjrases with *rurbogh* (or any kind of -bogh) need an agreement prefix if it's not just a third-person subject with a third-person direct object? I never thought about that, perhaps because I thought of it more as an adjective (albeit a prepositive adjective rather than the usual postpositive stative verb) rather than as a verb.
A relative clause is just a complete sentence with *-bogh* added to the end of the verb. *nIrur loDpu'*/Men resemble you./ *nIrurbogh loDpu'*/men who resemble you/ The entire relative clause gets used as a noun phrase in another sentence. *jatlhpu' SoSoy nIrurbogh loDpu' vIghombej */Momma said I will certainly meet men who resemble you./ The verb is not prepositive or postpositive; it simply sits between any object and subject as usual. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
As others have said, EVERY verb with {-bogh} forms its own complete sentence encapsulated within a larger sentence. The elephant in the room is the Head Noun. That’s the word that is functioning as a noun in both the encapsulated Relative Clause and in the outer complete sentence (with its own separate verb). You’ll only confuse yourself if you think about pre-positional vs. post-positional because it comes before the Head Noun if the Head Noun is the Subject of the Relative Clause or after the Head Noun if the Head Noun is the Object of the Relative Clause, and the entire Relative Clause comes before or after the verb in the outer complete sentence, depending on whether or not the Head Noun is Subject or Object of THAT verb. Relative Clauses may offer you a description, but that doesn’t mean they are acting as Adjectives. They most commonly are used to identify a specific noun. At one time in the ancient past on this list, there were arguments about whether or not they also could be used as parenthetical comments on the Head Noun because at that time, our limited canon examples were all of the identifying type, like, “The woman who is standing next to you is named Tyler.” Which woman? There are ten women in the room. I’m talking about the one standing next to you. We weren’t sure whether or not you could also use them for things like, “Our leader, who is fond of knitting, commands us to attend the meeting.” We already know who the leader is. I’m just telling you something about her that has nothing to do with the rest of the sentence. I’m sure our canon experts will be happy to clarify whether or not we’ve been given license to use Relative Clauses for parenthetical statements about the Head Noun. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jan 31, 2023, at 12:29 AM, James Landau via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:04:06 +0100 From: André M?ller <esperantist@gmail.com <mailto:esperantist@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Bullets in Klingon
On a side note, note that there's a prefix missing in the title. "Boys like you" should be {SoH nIrurbogh loDpu'}.
So pjrases with *rurbogh* (or any kind of -bogh) need an agreement prefix if it's not just a third-person subject with a third-person direct object? I never thought about that, perhaps because I thought of it more as an adjective (albeit a prepositive adjective rather than the usual postpositive stative verb) rather than as a verb.
Good catch! _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/2/2023 11:02 AM, Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
I’m sure our canon experts will be happy to clarify whether or not we’ve been given license to use Relative Clauses for parenthetical statements about the Head Noun.
You're describing the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. I believe we still haven't seen nonrestrictive relative clauses. To say /Our leader, who is fond of knitting, commands us to attend the meeting,/ you apparently can't say *qepDaq majeS 'e' ra' nIq 'e' tIvbogh DevI'ma'.* This means something more like /Our leader who is fond of knitting (as opposed to our other leader, who isn't) commands us to attend the meeting./ You'd have to split this up a bit: *qepDaq majeS 'e' ra' DevwI'ma'. (nIq 'e' tIv ghaH.)* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qatlho’. I thought this was true, but I know that there have been revelations that I’ve missed due to extended inattention. It’s good to have this pointed out, for those new to the language, so I’m glad it came up. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Feb 2, 2023, at 11:15 AM, SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 2/2/2023 11:02 AM, Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
I’m sure our canon experts will be happy to clarify whether or not we’ve been given license to use Relative Clauses for parenthetical statements about the Head Noun. You're describing the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. I believe we still haven't seen nonrestrictive relative clauses.
To say Our leader, who is fond of knitting, commands us to attend the meeting, you apparently can't say qepDaq majeS 'e' ra' nIq 'e' tIvbogh DevI'ma'. This means something more like Our leader who is fond of knitting (as opposed to our other leader, who isn't) commands us to attend the meeting. You'd have to split this up a bit: qepDaq majeS 'e' ra' DevwI'ma'. (nIq 'e' tIv ghaH.)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:15 AM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 2/2/2023 11:02 AM, Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
I’m sure our canon experts will be happy to clarify whether or not we’ve been given license to use Relative Clauses for parenthetical statements about the Head Noun.
You're describing the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. I believe we still haven't seen nonrestrictive relative clauses.
To say *Our leader, who is fond of knitting, commands us to attend the meeting,* you apparently can't say *qepDaq majeS 'e' ra' nIq 'e' tIvbogh DevI'ma'.*
Is this confirmed anywhere? My first feeling would be that context would dictate whether the leader's fondness for knitting is an important distinction or merely a parenthetical. I found a few quotes from the paq'batlh which seem like nonrestrictive relative clauses, assuming I've interpreted that term correctly. (One common thing from the examples is that the English translations usually don't use a relative clause of either kind, which might make it harder to determine what the intent of the sentence was.) All quotes are from the paq'batlh, 2nd edition:
*SaqSub’e’ muSHa’bogh* * pawmeH leng qeylIS* * HuDmey Sal ghIq ghIr* *And Kahless traveled to* * His beloved Saq’sub,* * Over the mountains,*
paq'raD, canto 7, lines 1-3, pages 120-121 *pIraqSIS maS bIngDaq*
* pIgh rur SaqSub chIm* * choSlu’pu’bogh* *The Saq’sub lay* * Empty and desolate,* * Under the Praxis moon.*
paq'raD, canto 8, 1-3, pages 122-123 Contextually, we know there's only one Saq'sub (or at least there's only one that's in any way relevant to the story), so *SaqSub’e’ muSHa’bogh* ("Saq'sub which Kahless loved") and *SaqSub chIm **choSlu’pu’bogh* ("empty Saq'sub which had been deserted") must be parentheticals.
*vaj matlhutlhjaj ghe’torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI’’e’ wIquvmoHjaj Heghbogh loDnI’wI’ wIquvmoHjaj!*
*Let us drink then To my father in Gre’thor And the brother I once had.*
paq'yav, canto 10, lines 13-15, pages 88-89 This quote has the same situation. Contextually, Kahless only has the one father and the one brother, so these sentences aren't restricting the meaning any further.
*SIqral bIQtIqDaq joqtaHbogh molor tIqDu’ qem qeylIS bIQ DoqDaq tlhabmoH*
*Kahless takes Molor’s hearts, Still beating, to the river Skral, He sets them free in the crimson water.*
paq'raD, canto 23, lines 46-48, pages 166-167 Molor doesn't have any non-beating hearts to contrast with. The English translation, "still beating", is set off with commas, further suggesting that it's intended to be a parenthetical comment. Looking at the Skybox cards, I found another example (which is a pretty clear example, and makes me wish I'd found it before I started writing this post):
*juHqo'Daq vaS'a' tu'lu'. ngoch luchermeH 'ej wo' San luwuqmeH pa'ghom tlhIngan yejquv DevwI'pu'. DaH che' ghawran. yejquv DevwI' mojghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD.*
*On the Homeworld, there is a great hall where the leaders of the KlingonHigh Council meet to determine policy and decide upon the fate of theEmpire. Gowron™ currently presides, named leader of the High Councilby Captain Jean-Luc Picard,™ who was acting as Arbiter ofSuccession.*
http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-sbx-s25.txt The "who was acting as Arbiter of Succession" clause in the final sentence is set off with a comma in the translation, suggesting it's intended as a parenthetical. Semantically, it can't be there to distinguish from some other Captain Jean-Luc Picard.
Dajchu’. Most of this sounds like Okrand extending what he started with {qeylIS lISlaHbe’bogh vay’}. It’s not really “restrictive”, in that there is only one Kahless, but… It’s like the relative clause is another way of addressing the head noun; another statement about the head noun that you really can’t pass by without saying. The relative clause is as important to state as the main clause. I’m not declaring a truth here. I’m chewing on an idea. Okrand’s use of this seems consistent. It’s like “one can’t forget him” is part of his name and identity. Picard, similarly has so much significance as Arbiter of Succession that you can’t just say something about him without bringing up this role. His name would carry less weight if you didn’t pack that on to it. That’s the root of it. Just like a suffix like {-na’} wakes you up to the significance of what might otherwise be a common noun, Okrand’s use of the Relative Clause seems to function as a punch to wake you up to the significance of the Head Noun. It may or may not identify the Head Noun in the restrictive sense, but it does turn up the volume in terms of significance. Maybe this is simply an accidental pattern and parenthetical Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses are fine in Klingon, but we haven’t seen that happen yet. It’s like Klingon doesn’t obviously have the linguistic line drawn between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. The line might happen in a different place, and only one side of this different line is obviously supported. Does this make sense to anyone else? pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Feb 2, 2023, at 7:52 PM, nIqolay Q via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:15 AM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org>> wrote:
On 2/2/2023 11:02 AM, Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
I’m sure our canon experts will be happy to clarify whether or not we’ve been given license to use Relative Clauses for parenthetical statements about the Head Noun. You're describing the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. I believe we still haven't seen nonrestrictive relative clauses.
To say Our leader, who is fond of knitting, commands us to attend the meeting, you apparently can't say qepDaq majeS 'e' ra' nIq 'e' tIvbogh DevI'ma'.
Is this confirmed anywhere? My first feeling would be that context would dictate whether the leader's fondness for knitting is an important distinction or merely a parenthetical. I found a few quotes from the paq'batlh which seem like nonrestrictive relative clauses, assuming I've interpreted that term correctly. (One common thing from the examples is that the English translations usually don't use a relative clause of either kind, which might make it harder to determine what the intent of the sentence was.)
All quotes are from the paq'batlh, 2nd edition:
SaqSub’e’ muSHa’bogh pawmeH leng qeylIS HuDmey Sal ghIq ghIr And Kahless traveled to His beloved Saq’sub, Over the mountains, paq'raD, canto 7, lines 1-3, pages 120-121
pIraqSIS maS bIngDaq pIgh rur SaqSub chIm choSlu’pu’bogh The Saq’sub lay Empty and desolate, Under the Praxis moon. paq'raD, canto 8, 1-3, pages 122-123 Contextually, we know there's only one Saq'sub (or at least there's only one that's in any way relevant to the story), so SaqSub’e’ muSHa’bogh ("Saq'sub which Kahless loved") and SaqSub chIm choSlu’pu’bogh ("empty Saq'sub which had been deserted") must be parentheticals.
vaj matlhutlhjaj ghe’torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI’’e’ wIquvmoHjaj Heghbogh loDnI’wI’ wIquvmoHjaj! Let us drink then To my father in Gre’thor And the brother I once had. paq'yav, canto 10, lines 13-15, pages 88-89 This quote has the same situation. Contextually, Kahless only has the one father and the one brother, so these sentences aren't restricting the meaning any further.
SIqral bIQtIqDaq joqtaHbogh molor tIqDu’ qem qeylIS bIQ DoqDaq tlhabmoH Kahless takes Molor’s hearts, Still beating, to the river Skral, He sets them free in the crimson water. paq'raD, canto 23, lines 46-48, pages 166-167 Molor doesn't have any non-beating hearts to contrast with. The English translation, "still beating", is set off with commas, further suggesting that it's intended to be a parenthetical comment.
Looking at the Skybox cards, I found another example (which is a pretty clear example, and makes me wish I'd found it before I started writing this post):
juHqo'Daq vaS'a' tu'lu'. ngoch luchermeH 'ej wo' San luwuqmeH pa' ghom tlhIngan yejquv DevwI'pu'. DaH che' ghawran. yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD. On the Homeworld, there is a great hall where the leaders of the Klingon High Council meet to determine policy and decide upon the fate of the Empire. Gowron™ currently presides, named leader of the High Council by Captain Jean-Luc Picard,™ who was acting as Arbiter of Succession. http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-sbx-s25.txt The "who was acting as Arbiter of Succession" clause in the final sentence is set off with a comma in the translation, suggesting it's intended as a parenthetical. Semantically, it can't be there to distinguish from some other Captain Jean-Luc Picard.
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
James Landau -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin