'ej DaH.. and now.. bomtaHvIS lIrmey.. while the owls are singing.. DISmey HurghDaq, poStaHvIS 'ej SoQtaHvIS Depmey taQ mInDu' chIS.. while white eyes of strange creatures are opening and closing in dark caves.. maSDaq mI'taHvIS loDpu' mach (SuDbogh 'ej pormey rur).. while little green men are dancing on the moon.. wa' bebvo' latlh bebDaq SuptaHvIS qeylIS.. while qeylIS is jumping from one rooftop to the other.. 'unwatDajDaq QongtaHvIS vIghro'maj tIQ ('ej Qongmo' Quch).. while our ancient cat is sleeping happily in its' basket.. 'ej HurDaq chabHom tlhapraghvaD, wa' 'al'on ngaSwI' chabHommey wIlanta'.. and having left outside a jar of cookies for the cookie monster.. tagha', maQongchoHlaH.. finally, we can go to sleep.. maj ram.. ~ m. qunen'oS I wonder why I keep coming up with posts like this
Your imagery is beautiful. You make me see things I have never seen. qatlho’. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 28, 2019, at 4:06 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
'ej DaH.. and now..
bomtaHvIS lIrmey.. while the owls are singing..
DISmey HurghDaq, poStaHvIS 'ej SoQtaHvIS Depmey taQ mInDu' chIS.. while white eyes of strange creatures are opening and closing in dark caves..
maSDaq mI'taHvIS loDpu' mach (SuDbogh 'ej pormey rur).. while little green men are dancing on the moon..
wa' bebvo' latlh bebDaq SuptaHvIS qeylIS.. while qeylIS is jumping from one rooftop to the other..
'unwatDajDaq QongtaHvIS vIghro'maj tIQ ('ej Qongmo' Quch).. while our ancient cat is sleeping happily in its' basket..
'ej HurDaq chabHom tlhapraghvaD, wa' 'al'on ngaSwI' chabHommey wIlanta'.. and having left outside a jar of cookies for the cookie monster..
tagha', maQongchoHlaH.. finally, we can go to sleep..
maj ram..
~ m. qunen'oS I wonder why I keep coming up with posts like this _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 00:03, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2019, 22:06 mayqel qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
'ej DaH.. and now..
nuq 'ej DaH nuq?
I ask because {'ej} is a sentence conjunction, and there's no known instance of such a thing *starting* a sentence. (The non-canon {'ej HumtaH 'ej DechtaH 'Iw} doesn't count, and is in any case archaic and poetic.) Also, {DaH} is an adverbial, and it should either start a sentence, or if standing alone, be considered an exclamation. While an exclamation is a type of sentence and I guess in principle it could be joined using {'ej}, it still sounds odd to me. Following {'ej}, I expect {DaH} to start a complete sentence. -- De'vID
charghwI':
Your imagery is beautiful. You make me see things I have never seen.
qatlho' charghwI' ! QInvam DaparHa'qu'mo' jIbel ! thank you charghwI' ! I'm glad you liked this post ! De'vID:
I ask because {'ej} is a sentence conjunction, and there's no known instance of such a thing *starting* a sentence. (The non-canon {'ej HumtaH 'ej DechtaH 'Iw} doesn't count, and is in any case archaic and poetic.) Also, {DaH} is an adverbial, and it should either start a sentence, or if standing alone, be considered an exclamation. While an exclamation is a type of sentence and I guess in principle it could be joined using {'ej}, it still sounds odd to me. Following {'ej}, I expect {DaH} to start a complete sentence.
You're absolutely right ! While I was writing this post yesterday, I realized that the {'ej DaH} was wrong, but because I *really* needed to sleep, I wrote it anyway; may qeylIS forgive me.. Now, after 8 hours of shut-eye, and a coffee powerful enough to wake the dead, I realize that I could write just {DaH}. ~ m. qunen'oS I love the cookie monster
De'vID:
'ach... qatlh bIjatlhnIS: {DaH}? chay' 'ut?
I thought of writing it, as an introduction to the story, and in order to emphasize that *now* we can go to sleep, *while* the events which will be described are happening. I don't know though, if this goal is actually achieved by {DaH} alone. But I can't find anything better. ~ m. qunen'oS let the Ca'Non flow through you
Am 29.05.2019 um 11:10 schrieb De'vID:
I ask because {'ej} is a sentence conjunction, and there's no known instance of such a thing *starting* a sentence.
Also in English (and other languages) it does not count as good style starting a sentence with "and."
Also, {DaH} is an adverbial, and it should either start a sentence, or if standing alone, be considered an exclamation. While an exclamation is a type of sentence and I guess in principle it could be joined using {'ej}, it still sounds odd to me. Following {'ej}, I expect {DaH} to start a complete sentence.
Nevertheless, I would accept such a strange and ungrammatical construction with no actual meaning just as a personal style of starting something to get one's attention, just as many people do in English, and what mayqel also did here. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 13:04, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Nevertheless, I would accept such a strange and ungrammatical construction with no actual meaning just as a personal style of starting something to get one's attention, just as many people do in English, and what mayqel also did here.
tlhoy DIvI' Hol rur. vIlajQo'. -- De'vID
On 5/29/2019 7:04 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 29.05.2019 um 11:10 schrieb De'vID:
I ask because {'ej} is a sentence conjunction, and there's no known instance of such a thing *starting* a sentence.
Also in English (and other languages) it does not count as good style starting a sentence with "and."
Depends on the register in which you're writing. In Biblical style it's quite common. Before literacy was common, people who could read would read aloud for the benefit of those who could not. Using a prominent conjunction at the beginning of a sentence was meant to be an audible cue that you were starting a new sentence. The rule "don't start a sentence with a conjunction" is about as valid as "don't split infinitives." We do have canonical Klingon of conjunctions starting sentences. *'ach HoD, Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'* (ST5) *yIghIr qeylIS yIghIr betleHlIj yI'uch 'IwlIj DevtaHjaj* *'ej pum qeylIS pumtaH HurghtaH pumtaH HurghtaH* /(paq'batlh)/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 14:53, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel
The rule "don't start a sentence with a conjunction" is about as valid as "don't split infinitives."
What is the "don't split infinitives" ?
"to boldly go" tuch pab chutqoq. "to go boldly" qonnISlu' 'e' maq. -- De'vID
If you have a verb like “go”, the infinitive form is “to go”, and the “rule” says you shouldn’t split the verb from the “to”. For example, one shouldn’t say “to boldly go”. Russ
On May 29, 2019, at 7:52 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel
The rule "don't start a sentence with a conjunction" is about as valid as "don't split infinitives."
What is the "don't split infinitives" ?
~ m. qunen'oS everyone loves the cookie monster _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ok, now I understand what "to split infinitives" is in english. but how could I do that in klingon (even if I wanted to) ? ~ m. qunen'oS
SuStel:
So even if you WERE worried about splitting infinitives in Klingon, it has no infinitives for you to split.
ok, now I understand, thanks. I was worried, in case not knowing what "splitting infinitives" is, I was doing something wrong without even realizing it.. ~ m. qunen'oS
On 5/29/2019 9:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
ok, now I understand what "to split infinitives" is in english.
but how could I do that in klingon (even if I wanted to) ?
Klingon doesn't have infinitives, so you can't split one. A verb is called /finite/ if it has a subject. The subject might be elided in some languages, but it's still identifiable. An infinitive is a verb that has no subject. I don't mean an indefinite subject like Klingon *-lu'* gives, but actually no subject. A /mission to explore/ has the verb /to explore/ without a subject: no one is the subject of the exploring. In English we usually conjugate infinitives with /to/ in front of them. The full infinitive form is not just /explore;/ it's /to explore./ Long ago, English grammarians started analyzing English according to the rules of Latin, which was largely believed to be a nearly perfectly formed language. For instance, Latin noun cases would be applied to English nouns, even though English nouns rarely exhibit case. The rules of good grammar, they claimed, must obey the rules of Latin. Latin verbs have their own infinitive conjugations. You don't add anything like a /to/ to the word. The Latin for the present tense /to read,/ for instance is /legere//./ Since it's a single word, there's no way you could possibly put, say, an adverb /inside/ the verb. It has to go before or after. But in English, you CAN put an adverb between /to/ and /read: to quickly read./ Nonono! shouted the grammarians. Latin's grammar is perfect, so you must be doing it wrong. Don't split infinitives with other words! Make English work the same as Latin! This argument is nonsense. English quite happily splits infinitives, and there are times when it is preferable to do so. /To boldly go/ sounds much more dramatic than /to go boldly/ or /boldly to go./ Another such Latin-is-perfect rule is the rule that you can't end a sentence with a preposition. Of course you can end a sentence with a preposition. But even today you'll still find English teachers and grammarians who insist that you mustn't split infinitives or end sentences with prepositions, or any number of other rules that were imposed unnaturally on the language by overzealous grammarians with platforms. Back to Klingon. It has no infinitive conjugation. Once in a while we'll use a purpose clause in an infinitive way (e.g., *ghojmeH taj*/knife for learning,/ where the verb has no subject, explicit or implied), but there is no special form of the verb to do this and no unique construction that requires a verb be infinitive. So even if you WERE worried about splitting infinitives in Klingon, it has no infinitives for you to split. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I applaud this very clear explanation of the “don’t split infinitives” rule, why it exists, and why English speakers commonly ignore it, and why it has nothing to do with Klingon grammar. Well done, sir. The only thing I’d add is that the closest thing to an infinitive in Klingon is a verb with {-meH}. Sometimes a verb with {-meH} does have a subject, but it often doesn’t, especially in common noun phrases like {ghojmeH taj}. And, it’s worth noting that Okrand’s glosses do not use the infinitive form on the English side, when most dictionaries would. The definition of {mach} is “small, be small”, not “small, to be small”. {ghoj} is “learn”, not “to learn”. I’m sure Okrand did that on purpose, to make the point that with rare exception, Klingon does not have an infinitive form for its verbs. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 29, 2019, at 9:28 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/29/2019 9:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
ok, now I understand what "to split infinitives" is in english.
but how could I do that in klingon (even if I wanted to) ? Klingon doesn't have infinitives, so you can't split one.
A verb is called finite if it has a subject. The subject might be elided in some languages, but it's still identifiable.
An infinitive is a verb that has no subject. I don't mean an indefinite subject like Klingon -lu' gives, but actually no subject. A mission to explore has the verb to explore without a subject: no one is the subject of the exploring.
In English we usually conjugate infinitives with to in front of them. The full infinitive form is not just explore; it's to explore.
Long ago, English grammarians started analyzing English according to the rules of Latin, which was largely believed to be a nearly perfectly formed language. For instance, Latin noun cases would be applied to English nouns, even though English nouns rarely exhibit case. The rules of good grammar, they claimed, must obey the rules of Latin.
Latin verbs have their own infinitive conjugations. You don't add anything like a to to the word. The Latin for the present tense to read, for instance is legere. Since it's a single word, there's no way you could possibly put, say, an adverb inside the verb. It has to go before or after. But in English, you CAN put an adverb between to and read: to quickly read.
Nonono! shouted the grammarians. Latin's grammar is perfect, so you must be doing it wrong. Don't split infinitives with other words! Make English work the same as Latin!
This argument is nonsense. English quite happily splits infinitives, and there are times when it is preferable to do so. To boldly go sounds much more dramatic than to go boldly or boldly to go.
Another such Latin-is-perfect rule is the rule that you can't end a sentence with a preposition. Of course you can end a sentence with a preposition.
But even today you'll still find English teachers and grammarians who insist that you mustn't split infinitives or end sentences with prepositions, or any number of other rules that were imposed unnaturally on the language by overzealous grammarians with platforms.
Back to Klingon. It has no infinitive conjugation. Once in a while we'll use a purpose clause in an infinitive way (e.g., ghojmeH taj knife for learning, where the verb has no subject, explicit or implied), but there is no special form of the verb to do this and no unique construction that requires a verb be infinitive.
So even if you WERE worried about splitting infinitives in Klingon, it has no infinitives for you to split.
-- 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
participants (6)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Russ Perry Jr -
SuStel -
Will Martin