Noun marked with {-'e'} at the beginning of the sentence
We know, that we can place a noun marked with {-'e'} at the beginning of the sentence, the meaning then goes "as for (noun).." and the sentence continues. The classic example is: {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} you would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy So, now, lets forget all of the above.. I want to write "the ancient cat is an alien". The usual choice would be to write, {nov 'oH vIghro' tIQ'e'}, which actually translates to "as for the ancient cat, it's an alien". But based on example of "you would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy", seemingly/apparently, I can write too: {vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH} as for the ancient cat, it's an alien As we see, whether I write {nov 'oH vIghro' tIQ'e'} or {vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH}, the english meaning is exactly the same. So, if we were asked what's the actual difference between the two, we should say: Both are equally correct, and the only difference between them, is (as 'oqranD once had clarified), that the {vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH} is more "shakespearean". Am I right ? ~ m. qunen'oS korriban DungDaq joqtaH ta' joqwI'
On 5/13/2019 8:38 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH} as for the ancient cat, it's an alien
As we see, whether I write {nov 'oH vIghro' tIQ'e'} or {vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH}, the english meaning is exactly the same.
So, if we were asked what's the actual difference between the two, we should say:
Both are equally correct, and the only difference between them, is (as 'oqranD once had clarified), that the {vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH} is more "shakespearean".
One is the way it's said; one is something you made up. Talk like Yoda you can, and understand you people will, but using good grammar you will not be. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mon, May 13, 2019, 05:39 mayqel qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
We know, that we can place a noun marked with {-'e'} at the beginning of the sentence, the meaning then goes "as for (noun).." and the sentence continues.
The classic example is:
{qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} you would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy
So, now, lets forget all of the above..
I want to write "the ancient cat is an alien".
The usual choice would be to write, {nov 'oH vIghro' tIQ'e'}, which actually translates to "as for the ancient cat, it's an alien".
But based on example of "you would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy", seemingly/apparently, I can write too:
{vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH} as for the ancient cat, it's an alien
As we see, whether I write {nov 'oH vIghro' tIQ'e'} or {vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH}, the english meaning is exactly the same.
They're not the same, though. If there are multiple ancient cats, the latter can mean "as for ancient cats, it is an alien". So, if we were asked what's the actual difference between the two, we
should say:
Both are equally correct, and the only difference between them, is (as 'oqranD once had clarified), that the {vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH} is more "shakespearean".
Cite your source. -- De'vID
From: mayqel qunen'oS
We know, that we can place a noun marked with {-'e'} at the beginning of the sentence, the meaning then goes "as for (noun).." and the sentence continues. The classic example is:
{qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} you would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy
No, what we know is that you can introduce a law'/puS formula with a noun phrase marked with {-'e'}. AFAIK it's the only one I know of so marked. Other such introductory phrases or clauses - set off with <brackets> - are marked with {-meH}: <jonlu'meH> wo'maj pop tIn law' Hoch tIn puS Our Empire's highest bounty has been placed on his head. (ST5 notes) <tlhutlhmeH> HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS Drinking fake ale is better than drinking water. TKW or {-mo'}: <cha’ DISmo’> jIH qan law’ SoH qan puS I'm two years older than you. (Lieven < Okrand, 7/25/2016) <cha’ ’ujmo’> jIH woch law’ SoH woch puS I'm two 'ujes taller than you. (Lieven < Okrand, 7/25/2016) or {-Daq}: <reH latlh qabDaq> qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS The fire is always hotter on someone else's face. PK or {-lu'DI'}: <noH ghoblu'DI'> yay quv law' Hoch quv puS In war there is nothing more honorable than victory. TKW or {-lu'chugh): <tlhIngan wo' yuQmey chovlu'chugh> Qo'noS potlh law' Hoch potlh puS The principal planet of the Klingon Empire, Qo'noS... S27 Such formulaic comparisons are not normal, simple sentences. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
De'vID:
Cite your source.
The title of the thread was "[tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' cha'maH loSDIch New words and some tidbits". Sent on: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:57 AM There, qurgh wrote: "I asked about fronting nouns marked with {-'e'} as described in the TKD Addendum. Marc said that {-'e'} fronted nouns are marked and it should only be used in extreme situations. He said one could, if they wanted to, use this all the time but it would be similar to an English speaking using Shakespearean English all the time." De'vID:
They're not the same, though. If there are multiple ancient cats, the latter can mean "as for ancient cats, it is an alien".
Read the thread titled: "noun with {-'e'} before the {... law' ... puS}" November 19 2018. Because I'm replying from my phone, I can't find the direct links to the archives. SuStel:
One is the way it's said; one is something you made up.
This is what I don't understand, (and I'm trying to): Why in the {qIbDaq SuvwI''e'..} we *can* introduce the topic at the beginning marked with {-'e'} and then follow with a comparative, but we can't do the same without following by a comparative. I'm not saying that we *can*; I'm saying that I can't understand *why* we can't. And believe me, I *do* want to understand. ~ m. qunen'oS wewqu'taH *sith*pu' jul
On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
One is the way it's said; one is something you made up.
This is what I don't understand, (and I'm trying to):
Why in the {qIbDaq SuvwI''e'..} we *can* introduce the topic at the beginning marked with {-'e'} and then follow with a comparative, but we can't do the same without following by a comparative.
I'm not saying that we *can*; I'm saying that I can't understand *why* we can't.
And believe me, I *do* want to understand.
It has nothing to do with whether it's appeared in a superlative sentence. It's because pronoun sentences already have a correct form, with the topic at the end. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 08:25, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
It has nothing to do with whether it's appeared in a superlative sentence. It's because pronoun sentences already have a correct form, with the topic at the end.
For emphasis? {cheng'e' DaH Sam! vIghro' tIQ'e' nov 'oH!} "Find CHANG now! The ANCIENT CAT is the alien!" -- De'vID
On 5/13/2019 11:46 AM, De'vID wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 08:25, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
It has nothing to do with whether it's appeared in a superlative sentence. It's because pronoun sentences already have a correct form, with the topic at the end.
For emphasis?
{cheng'e' DaH Sam! vIghro' tIQ'e' nov 'oH!} "Find CHANG now! The ANCIENT CAT is the alien!"
I've got no problem with that. mayqel wasn't translating something with emphasis. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On May 13, 2019, at 10:25, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
It has nothing to do with whether it's appeared in a superlative sentence. It's because pronoun sentences already have a correct form, with the topic at the end.
Another thing to consider is how the topic marker is optional in Morskan pronoun sentences, e.g., {nov 'o vIghro' tIQ}. While you can probably topic-mark and front the ancient cat to make something like {vIghro' tIQ'e' nov 'o}, you almost certainly cannot front the ancient cat without also topicalizing it, e.g., *{vIghro tIQ nov 'o}, which would be just as ungrammatical in Morskan as it is in {ta' Hol}. In other words, the {-'e'} in a pronoun-as-copula “to be” sentence is not just a topic marker in Standard Klingon. It’s a necessary part of the pronoun-as-copula formula. So it’s probably not a good idea to treat it like it’s just a topic marker, and it’s very unlikely that {vIghro' tIQ'e' nov 'oH} and {nov 'oH vIghro' tIQ'e'} are equivalent expressions apart from a marked stylistic difference of word order.
On 5/13/2019 11:49 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On May 13, 2019, at 10:25, SuStel<sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
It has nothing to do with whether it's appeared in a superlative sentence. It's because pronoun sentences already have a correct form, with the topic at the end. Another thing to consider is how the topic marker is optional in Morskan pronoun sentences, e.g., {nov 'o vIghro' tIQ}. While you can probably topic-mark and front the ancient cat to make something like {vIghro' tIQ'e' nov 'o}, you almost certainly cannot front the ancient cat without also topicalizing it, e.g., *{vIghro tIQ nov 'o}, which would be just as ungrammatical in Morskan as it is in {ta' Hol}.
He's not suggesting starting with the sentence *nov 'oH vIghro' tIQ'e'* and converting it to *vIghro' tIQ'e' nov 'oH;* he's talking about constructing the sentence according to the rules we know about building sentences. By his suggestion, a Morskan would say *vIghro' tIQ'e' nov 'o.*
In other words, the {-'e'} in a pronoun-as-copula “to be” sentence is not just a topic marker in Standard Klingon. It’s a necessary part of the pronoun-as-copula formula. So it’s probably not a good idea to treat it like it’s just a topic marker, and it’s very unlikely that {vIghro' tIQ'e' nov 'oH} and {nov 'oH vIghro' tIQ'e'} are equivalent expressions apart from a marked stylistic difference of word order.
Except we're explicitly told otherwise in TKD: *puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e'*/As for the prisoners, they are children. /*pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'*/As for the commander, he is in his quarters./ The *-'e'* may be required, but it still indicates a topic. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
It's because pronoun sentences already have a correct form, with the topic at the end.
ok, I see. So, pronoun sentences aside, what would your opinion be with regards to the following sentences ? {tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'} as for the klingons, they refuse to lend us their ships {tlhInganpu''e', qajatlhpu', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'} as for the klingons, I've told you, they refuse to lend us their ships {tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojqang net jalchugh, vaj QangvaD langmeH mIw vImuch} as for the klingons, if they were willing to lend us their ships, then I would present for the chancellor a thinning program. Are the above wrong ? Are the above correct ? or.. Are the above correct, *only* if I want to emphasize ? SuStel:
And it's fairly clear from TKD that another normal application of the rules is to add noun phrases to the fronts of sentences when their syntactic roles are known, whether by suffix or by their identification as time expressions.
By "identification as time expressions" you mean something like the following ? {cha'leS ram, vIghro' tIQ wIquvmoH} the night of day after tomorrow, we honor the ancient cat De'vID:
Nobody has said that you can't? It's grammatically valid. It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
Now, you lost me.. Lets remove the ambiguity, of whether its singular of plural, by writing: {vIghro'mey tIQ'e' novmey bIH}. Would you accept this to say "as for ancient cats, they are aliens" ? SuStel:
I've got no problem with that. mayqel wasn't translating something with emphasis.
So, as I understand, if I wrote: {vIghro'mey tIQ'e' novmey bIH} as for ancient cats, they are aliens Then this is correct and acceptable *only* if I want to translate something with emphasis, right ? SuStel:
I've got no problem with that. mayqel wasn't translating something with emphasis.
So, if I understand correctly, at the Ca'Non phrase {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS}, the translation isn't actually "as for (a) warrior(s)..", but rather "as for (A) WARRIOR(S)..". It is formulated this way (with the {-'e'} marked noun), for emphasis. right ? ~ m. qunen'oS let the Ca'Non flow through you
On 5/13/2019 12:03 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
It's because pronoun sentences already have a correct form, with the topic at the end.
ok, I see.
So, pronoun sentences aside, what would your opinion be with regards to the following sentences ?
{tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'} as for the klingons, they refuse to lend us their ships
{tlhInganpu''e', qajatlhpu', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'} as for the klingons, I've told you, they refuse to lend us their ships
{tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojqang net jalchugh, vaj QangvaD langmeH mIw vImuch} as for the klingons, if they were willing to lend us their ships, then I would present for the chancellor a thinning program.
Are the above wrong ? Are the above correct ? or.. Are the above correct, *only* if I want to emphasize ?
They are marked, because there is no reason you can't leave those nouns in their normal places in their sentences and still get emphasis: *maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo' tlhInganpu''e' * *qajatlhpu' maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo' tlhInganpu''e' *This one is another example of you splitting a sentence with something parenthetical. If I were to front the topic, I'd put the *qajatlhpu'* at the very end to avoid splitting the topic from its sentence. *maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojqang tlhInganpu''e' net jalchugh, vaj QangvaD langmeH mIw vImuch*
SuStel:
And it's fairly clear from TKD that another normal application of the rules is to add noun phrases to the fronts of sentences when their syntactic roles are known, whether by suffix or by their identification as time expressions.
By "identification as time expressions" you mean something like the following ?
{cha'leS ram, vIghro' tIQ wIquvmoH} the night of day after tomorrow, we honor the ancient cat
Yes. We know what the role of the noun phrase *cha'leS ram* /the night two days from now/ is, because we recognize it as a time expression.
De'vID:
Nobody has said that you can't? It's grammatically valid. It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
Now, you lost me..
Lets remove the ambiguity, of whether its singular of plural, by writing: {vIghro'mey tIQ'e' novmey bIH}. Would you accept this to say "as for ancient cats, they are aliens" ?
I would accept it as a marked way to emphasize *vIghro'mey tIQ.* But you don't really mean to emphasize the phrase, just topicalize it. It already gets topicalized as *novmey bIH vIghro'mey tIQ'e'.*
SuStel:
I've got no problem with that. mayqel wasn't translating something with emphasis.
So, as I understand, if I wrote:
{vIghro'mey tIQ'e' novmey bIH} as for ancient cats, they are aliens
Then this is correct and acceptable *only* if I want to translate something with emphasis, right ?
That's how I'd interpret it. That doesn't preclude a possible reading of it as a simple topic, but Okrand has said that such a form would be marked. It's hard to imagine topicalizing that way and not expecting it to be read as emphasis. You seem to have trouble accepting the idea that sometimes you CAN say something, but that you might not WANT to say it because of how it sounds to a native speaker.
SuStel:
I've got no problem with that. mayqel wasn't translating something with emphasis.
So, if I understand correctly, at the Ca'Non phrase {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS}, the translation isn't actually "as for (a) warrior(s)..", but rather "as for (A) WARRIOR(S)..". It is formulated this way (with the {-'e'} marked noun), for emphasis.
right ?
No. Okrand said that such a phrase is marked, not that it automatically provides emphasis. In this sentence it's clearly just being used this way because there's no other place it belongs in the superlative formula. In basic sentences if you want to emphasize the subject or object, you just leave them in place. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I think it can also be used for clarity, such as signalling a change in topic (since the subject comes last in Klingon), or to help navigate a longer sentence where the context of the subject is helpful up front. We can see a similar thing in English where we can use the mutability of it word order and multiplicity of verb constructions to shift word around and convey the same information. It’s a subtle emphasis change, but it is an emphasis change: “De’vID gave SuStel the bat’leth, but he gave the disrupter to qurgh.” vs. “De’vID gave the bat’leth to SuStel, but the disrupter was given to qurgh.” vs. “The bat'leth was given to SuStel by De’vID, but the disrupter he gave to qurgh.” By choosing to alter the proximity and order of presentation, we can subtly shift the emphasis while the information conveyed remains the same. This is (painfully) easy in English. Klingon is far more ridged in word order. SuStelvaD betleH nob De’vID, ‘a qurghvaD nISwI’ nob De’vID’e’, SuStelvaD betleH nob, ‘a qurghvaD nISwI’ nob (Calling attention to the fact that it was De’vID who gave SuStel a bat’leth) One also wonders if the following might also be valid, since the -‘e’ topicaliser could (my conjecture) serve to contextualise an indicated pronoun from a verbal prefix: betleH’e’, SuStelvaD nob De’vID. Buuuuuuuut, I doubt that’d be acceptable without clarification from Okrand. —jevreH
On May 13, 2019, at 12:03, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
It's because pronoun sentences already have a correct form, with the topic at the end.
ok, I see.
So, pronoun sentences aside, what would your opinion be with regards to the following sentences ?
{tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'} as for the klingons, they refuse to lend us their ships
{tlhInganpu''e', qajatlhpu', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'} as for the klingons, I've told you, they refuse to lend us their ships
{tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojqang net jalchugh, vaj QangvaD langmeH mIw vImuch} as for the klingons, if they were willing to lend us their ships, then I would present for the chancellor a thinning program.
Are the above wrong ? Are the above correct ? or.. Are the above correct, *only* if I want to emphasize ?
SuStel:
And it's fairly clear from TKD that another normal application of the rules is to add noun phrases to the fronts of sentences when their syntactic roles are known, whether by suffix or by their identification as time expressions.
By "identification as time expressions" you mean something like the following ?
{cha'leS ram, vIghro' tIQ wIquvmoH} the night of day after tomorrow, we honor the ancient cat
De'vID:
Nobody has said that you can't? It's grammatically valid. It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
Now, you lost me..
Lets remove the ambiguity, of whether its singular of plural, by writing: {vIghro'mey tIQ'e' novmey bIH}. Would you accept this to say "as for ancient cats, they are aliens" ?
SuStel:
I've got no problem with that. mayqel wasn't translating something with emphasis.
So, as I understand, if I wrote:
{vIghro'mey tIQ'e' novmey bIH} as for ancient cats, they are aliens
Then this is correct and acceptable *only* if I want to translate something with emphasis, right ?
SuStel:
I've got no problem with that. mayqel wasn't translating something with emphasis.
So, if I understand correctly, at the Ca'Non phrase {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS}, the translation isn't actually "as for (a) warrior(s)..", but rather "as for (A) WARRIOR(S)..". It is formulated this way (with the {-'e'} marked noun), for emphasis.
right ?
~ m. qunen'oS let the Ca'Non flow through you _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jIH:
{tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'} {tlhInganpu''e', qajatlhpu', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojQo'} {tlhInganpu''e', maHvaD Dujmeychaj nojqang net jalchugh, vaj QangvaD langmeH mIw vImuch} Are the above wrong ? Are the above correct ? or.. Are the above correct, *only* if I want to emphasize ? SuStel: They are marked, because there is no reason you can't leave those nouns in their normal places in their sentences and still get emphasis:
Sorry for asking this, but because grammar terms confuse me.. (i.e. I don't know them..) When you say "marked", you mean "emphatic" ? So, if I understand correctly, ({qajatlhpu'} aside..) these sentences are correct, only if the intention is to emphasize ?
{qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} SuStel Okrand said that such a phrase is marked, not that it automatically provides emphasis
As this thread goes on, I become more confused by each line I read. Again, sorry for my ignorance of grammar terms, but can you please explain the difference between "marked" "emphasized" and "topicalized" ? ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non holy Ca'Non
On May 13, 2019, at 12:41 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
When you say "marked", you mean "emphatic" ?
No. “Marked” refers to a grammatical structure that technically follows the rules but sounds very unusual. Consider a word like {chenghach} — its intended meaning is relatively obvious, but it calls attention to its construction more than to its meaning. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 5/13/2019 12:41 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Again, sorry for my ignorance of grammar terms, but can you please explain the difference between "marked" "emphasized" and "topicalized" ?
/Marked/ means the wording is noticeably odd in some way. /Emphasis/ means you are drawing attention or importance to a term. /Topic/ means you're telling what the sentence is all about. Klingon *-'e'* serves as a topic marker in pronoun-as-to-be sentences. It serves as an emphasis marker when placed on the subject or object of a basic sentence or dependent clause. It serves as a marker of the head noun of a relative clause. And it serves as the marker of a topic noun standing on its own, but this usage is said by Okrand to be marked — using it this way seems odd to native speakers. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you all for taking the time to explain. After reading the descriptions of what marked/emphasized/topicalized actually mean, everything became clearer. I believe, my confusion was mainly due to the fact, that I couldn't differentiate between these terms. But I have one final (hopefully..) question: jIH:
Lets remove the ambiguity, of whether it's singular of plural, by writing: {vIghro'mey tIQ'e' novmey bIH}. Would you accept this > to say "as for ancient cats, they are aliens" ? SuStel: I would accept it as a marked way to emphasize vIghro'mey tIQ. But you don't really mean to emphasize the phrase, just topicalize it. It already gets topicalized as novmey bIH vIghro'mey tIQ'e'.
I understand now (finally), what topicalized means. And, thank qeylIS, I understand too, what "marked way to emphasize" means. But I wonder.. If I want to say "the ANCIENT CATS are aliens", emphasizing the "ancient cats", but in an unmarked way, then how do I it ? If I just write {novmey bIH vIghro'mey tIQ'e'}, then the {vIghro'mey tIQ} is topicalized by the {-'e'}, but not emphasized.. ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non Ca'NonoywIj..
On 5/13/2019 1:55 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If I want to say "the ANCIENT CATS are aliens", emphasizing the "ancient cats", but in an unmarked way, then how do I it ?
If I just write {novmey bIH vIghro'mey tIQ'e'}, then the {vIghro'mey tIQ} is topicalized by the {-'e'}, but not emphasized..
In an unmarked way? You can't, using pronoun-as-to-be. But you could say *nov vIghro'mey tIQ'e'*/the ANCIENT CATS are alien./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you SuStel, and thank you all ! Finally, everything is crystal clear.. jIQuch ! 'ej jIlopmeH, SIbI' DI'raqwIj chuv vISop.. tagha', jIleSlaH.. ~ m. qunen'oS In Ca'Non we trust
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:55 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
But I wonder..
If I want to say "the ANCIENT CATS are aliens", emphasizing the "ancient cats", but in an unmarked way, then how do I it ?
If I just write {novmey bIH vIghro'mey tIQ'e'}, then the {vIghro'mey tIQ} is topicalized by the {-'e'}, but not emphasized..
This is probably the sort of thing that Morskans get real smug about. They can just say *novmey bI vIghro'mey tIH'e'* and it means just what you're looking for. However, if moving to Morska is out of the picture, you could try putting extra stress or emphasis on the *-'e'*, or rephrase in such a way that you can use an *-'e'* with no confusion. As discussed, fronting the *-'e'* noun would probably sound weird and ungrammatical, although in this case that weirdness might be its own kind of emphasis. (As KGT puts it, "No one accepts such constructions as grammatical; their inappropriateness, the way they grate on the Klingon ear, is exactly what gives them elocutionary clout.")
On May 13, 2019, at 13:22, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
novmey bI vIghro'mey tIH'e'
I have seen non-canon descriptions of Morskan on the web that state that {Q} becomes {H}, but the actual text that describes the dialect in KGT says this happens specifically in syllable-initial position, so I believe {tIQ} is still {tIQ} in Morskan, unless the description in KGT is incomplete. There’s a “dialect” example in one of the audio tapes (I think CK but it might be PK) where Dr. Okrand pronounces the word {Ha'DIbaH} as {haDba} in the unnamed dialect he is demonstrating. The dialect resembles Morskan in many other ways and I’m not sure whether it was meant to be Morskan and the description in KGT fails to mention other phonetic changes like the elision of some vowels in some cases, or if it’s a different dialect that isn’t described anywhere, or if the {I} was unintentionally omitted in Dr. Okrand’s performance of the line, although it does sound quite intentional to me.
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:54 PM Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On May 13, 2019, at 13:22, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
novmey bI vIghro'mey tIH'e'
I have seen non-canon descriptions of Morskan on the web that state that {Q} becomes {H}, but the actual text that describes the dialect in KGT says this happens specifically in syllable-initial position, so I believe {tIQ} is still {tIQ} in Morskan, unless the description in KGT is incomplete.
*hagh qopu' ne heghtavIS SuvwI'pu'! bIlugh. * I had somehow completely forgotten that the *Q* -> *H* change only occurs at the beginning of syllables. *morISqa' 'oHbe'ba' juHqo'wIj'e'.*
Okay, great things have come from this discussion exploring the use of the Type 5 noun suffix {-‘e’}. For those relatively new to the language (if there are any here, anymore), hoping to summarize/review for the sake of clarity without upsetting anyone who thinks I’ve gotten it wrong yet again: In TKD, Marc Okrand describes the use of {-‘e’} placed on a noun at the beginning of a sentence as making the noun the “topic” of the sentence. Elsewhere in TKD, it is also used on the noun in the subject position of a “to be” sentence, using a pronoun as the verb. This is not to be misinterpreted as marking that noun as the topic of the sentence. It is a separate grammatical function of the suffix {-‘e’}. {tlhIngan ghaH HoDvetlh’e’.} “That captain is a Klingon." The captain is not the topic of the sentence. It’s just the X in the grammatical construction “X is Y.” It’s a convention. Don’t try to apply outside grammatical rules to it. Just accept that this is how this is done. In early years of the language, SuStel pointed out that in Okrand’s examples, he rarely marked the topic with {-‘e’}, but instead used {-‘e’} for emphasis or focus. He and I argued about this, and I was stubborn at the time, but more recently have noticed, that, gee, he was right. I was wrong. My bad. It’s optionally used to mark the head noun of a relative clause, to clarify cases where the verb with {-bogh} has both a subject and an object. Note that this usage has nothing to do with being a topic. It’s just marking one of the nouns as noteworthy because it has a grammatical function both within the relative clause and also externally to the main clause the relative clause is a part of. You don’t use {-‘e’} if the relative clause has only a subject or only an object, and you don’t have to use it in any case where the head noun is obvious from context, or where the ambiguity is useful to the meaning of the sentence (or where, perhaps, you don’t mind being misunderstood). So, the primary example Okrand gives us in TKD for {-‘e’} used as the topic of the sentence is in practice perhaps the most rare in actual use. You can recognize it because you’ll note that there is a noun at the beginning of the sentence with {-‘e’} on it that has no grammatical reason for being in the sentence without the {-‘e’}. It’s the topic, and nothing but the topic. It’s not the subject. It’s not the object. It stands apart from the {OVS} grammatical structure of the sentence, preceding it. It’s the topic because that’s all it is. It gives you a context for the rest of the sentence. You are being directed to narrow your context of ideas for the following sentence to include only the topic stated. … or maybe SuStel called that “focus”. I get confused. Anyway... The secondary example is similarly separate from all other uses. In a “to be” sentence, (dialects aside) it marks the noun used in the “S” position of “OVS” where “V” is a pronoun functioning as the English verb “to be”. Any other place you see {-‘e’} used on a noun, the grammatical function of the noun is derived from its position in the sentence according to normal rules of grammar. The addition of the {-‘e’} calls your attention to that noun, either for clarity, pointing out the head noun in a relative clause, or for emphasis. It’s a relatively unique affix because it is used for different grammatical purposes in different contexts. This can be confusing, for a beginner, but the point is, the variety of functions is limited, and those functions are consistent in their form. I hope this helps. It’s a thin hope, but I hope it, all the same. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 13, 2019, at 12:53 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/13/2019 12:41 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Again, sorry for my ignorance of grammar terms, but can you please explain the difference between "marked" "emphasized" and "topicalized" ? Marked means the wording is noticeably odd in some way. Emphasis means you are drawing attention or importance to a term. Topic means you're telling what the sentence is all about.
Klingon -'e' serves as a topic marker in pronoun-as-to-be sentences. It serves as an emphasis marker when placed on the subject or object of a basic sentence or dependent clause. It serves as a marker of the head noun of a relative clause. And it serves as the marker of a topic noun standing on its own, but this usage is said by Okrand to be marked — using it this way seems odd to native speakers.
-- 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 5/13/2019 2:17 PM, Will Martin wrote:
In TKD, Marc Okrand describes the use of {-‘e’} placed on a noun at the beginning of a sentence as making the noun the “topic” of the sentence.
No he doesn't. He says "Any noun in the sentence indicating something other than subject or object comes first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a Type 5 noun suffix..." He gives us the example from /Star Trek V,/ *qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.* But he otherwise had given us no other indication that we can do this until he spoke to qurgh and called it marked. Now, it's not clear to me that Okrand was specifically talking about topic nouns at the front of the sentence, or emphasized subject or objects "fronted." He mixes up the concepts of topic and focus in TKD, which Lawrence pointed out in an interview with him in /HolQeD./ But let's assume he does, indeed, refer to putting otherwise standalone topic nouns in front of the sentence along with locatives and ablatives and so on. Putting a topic noun there would fit right in with everything else, and there's no prohibition against doing it, but we have learned that it is marked to do so, so it should generally be avoided.
Elsewhere in TKD, it is also used on the noun in the subject position of a “to be” sentence, using a pronoun as the verb. This is not to be misinterpreted as marking that noun as the topic of the sentence. It is a separate grammatical function of the suffix {-‘e’}. {tlhIngan ghaH HoDvetlh’e’.} “That captain is a Klingon." The captain is not the topic of the sentence. It’s just the X in the grammatical construction “X is Y.” It’s a convention. Don’t try to apply outside grammatical rules to it. Just accept that this is how this is done.
As a matter of fact, it DOES mark the topic of the sentence. *puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e'*/as for the prisoners, they are children. As for the prisoners/ names the topic of the sentence. The fact that it's a required grammatical form doesn't change the fact that it's a topic.
In early years of the language, SuStel pointed out that in Okrand’s examples, he rarely marked the topic with {-‘e’}, but instead used {-‘e’} for emphasis or focus. He and I argued about this, and I was stubborn at the time, but more recently have noticed, that, gee, he was right. I was wrong. My bad.
I only started pointing it out after Lawrence pointed it out to Okrand. I wasn't clear on the distinction myself.
So, the primary example Okrand gives us in TKD for {-‘e’} used as the topic of the sentence is in practice perhaps the most rare in actual use. You can recognize it because you’ll note that there is a noun at the beginning of the sentence with {-‘e’} on it that has no grammatical reason for being in the sentence without the {-‘e’}. It’s the topic, and nothing but the topic. It’s not the subject. It’s not the object. It stands apart from the {OVS} grammatical structure of the sentence, preceding it. It’s the topic because that’s all it is. It gives you a context for the rest of the sentence. You are being directed to narrow your context of ideas for the following sentence to include only the topic stated.
… or maybe SuStel called that “focus”. I get confused. Anyway...
No, /focus/ is another word for what we're calling /emphasis./ This is different than /topic./
The secondary example is similarly separate from all other uses. In a “to be” sentence, (dialects aside) it marks the noun used in the “S” position of “OVS” where “V” is a pronoun functioning as the English verb “to be”.
Pronoun-as-to-be sentences are not in an OVS form. They are their own special thing, just like the *law'/puS* sentence is its own special thing. TKD says that in the sentences *tlhIngan jIH, yaS SoH,* and *pa'wIjDaq jIHtaH,* the pronouns are the subjects of the sentences. But if you've got a third-person noun being linked to another noun, as in *puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e', *the noun marked with the topic suffix is the subject. It's easy to get confused and think of the pronoun as a verb stand-in because it has verb suffixes on it. But it's still a pronoun. This is not an OVS sentence; the Noun in <Noun Pronoun Topic*'e'*> is not an object. The pronoun simply "follows the noun." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On May 13, 2019, at 10:56, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
In other words, the {-'e'} in a pronoun-as-copula “to be” sentence is not just a topic marker in Standard Klingon. It’s a necessary part of the pronoun-as-copula formula. So it’s probably not a good idea to treat it like it’s just a topic marker, and it’s very unlikely that {vIghro' tIQ'e' nov 'oH} and {nov 'oH vIghro' tIQ'e'} are equivalent expressions apart from a marked stylistic difference of word order. Except we're explicitly told otherwise in TKD:
puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e' As for the prisoners, they are children. pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e' As for the commander, he is in his quarters.
The -'e' may be required, but it still indicates a topic.
Right, I didn’t mean to say it isn’t a topic marker. It certainly is. I said it’s not *just* a topic marker, in the sense that it is more than simply a topic marker, because it seems to serve some additional purpose that speakers of {ta' Hol} find necessary and Morskan speakers do not. But maybe I’ve been thinking about it backwards, and it’s just that Morskan speakers see the mandatory topicalization as redundant for some reason or another. It probably fits better with how the one known non-phonetic and non-lexical difference between Morskan and {ta' Hol} is described.
Sent from my iPad
On May 13, 2019, at 12:11, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
But maybe I’ve been thinking about it backwards, and it’s just that Morskan speakers see the mandatory topicalization as redundant for some reason or another. It probably fits better with how the one known non-phonetic and non-lexical difference between Morskan and {ta' Hol} is described.
I think it’s specifically in the pronoun cupola construction they see it as redundant since the pronoun in the place of a verb already signals the intent of the phrase. —jevreH
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:14, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Cite your source.
The title of the thread was "[tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' cha'maH loSDIch New words and some tidbits". Sent on: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:57 AM
There, qurgh wrote:
"I asked about fronting nouns marked with {-'e'} as described in the TKD Addendum. Marc said that {-'e'} fronted nouns are marked and it should only be used in extreme situations. He said one could, if they wanted to, use this all the time but it would be similar to an English speaking using Shakespearean English all the time."
That says something very different than what you claimed ([that the {vIghro' tIQ'e', nov 'oH} ismore "shakespearean"]). He's not saying that writing in this way is more Shakespearean, he's saying that writing in this way would appear as weird to a Klingon speaker as a person writing in Shakespearean English all the time would appear to a modern English speaker.
De'vID:
They're not the same, though. If there are multiple ancient cats, the latter can mean "as for ancient cats, it is an alien".
Read the thread titled:
"noun with {-'e'} before the {... law' ... puS}" November 19 2018.
I read it. It just reinforces my point that the two sentences are different. If you think otherwise, you'll have to explain how. Plural markers are optional, so {vIghro' tIQ'e'} could mean either "as for the ancient cat" or "as for ancient cats".
Because I'm replying from my phone, I can't find the direct links to the archives.
SuStel:
One is the way it's said; one is something you made up.
This is what I don't understand, (and I'm trying to):
Why in the {qIbDaq SuvwI''e'..} we *can* introduce the topic at the beginning marked with {-'e'} and then follow with a comparative, but we can't do the same without following by a comparative.
I'm not saying that we *can*; I'm saying that I can't understand *why* we can't.
And believe me, I *do* want to understand.
Nobody has said that you can't? It's grammatically valid. It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean. -- De'vID
On May 13, 2019, at 11:14 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The title of the thread was "[tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' cha'maH loSDIch New words and some tidbits". Sent on: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:57 AM
There, qurgh wrote:
"I asked about fronting nouns marked with {-'e'} as described in the TKD Addendum. Marc said that {-'e'} fronted nouns are marked and it should only be used in extreme situations. He said one could, if they wanted to, use this all the time but it would be similar to an English speaking using Shakespearean English all the time."
Did you look at what the Addendum is actually talking about? It’s describing the occasional placement of adverbials after a topicalized *object*. It doesn’t imply that a subject can be moved its typical position following a verb just because it carries the {-'e'} suffix. The idea of “fronting” a topic comes about because {-'e'} is a Type 5 noun suffix, and those tend to mark nouns as something other than subject or object. Such syntactically-marked nouns come before the object. So if you have a topic that *isn’t* the grammatical subject or object of the sentence, you put it at the beginning of the sentence where such nouns go. If you have a pronoun-as-be sentence, the subject comes after the pronoun. Don’t try to extrapolate inapplicable rules to change the word order. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 5/13/2019 11:07 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
From: mayqel qunen'oS
We know, that we can place a noun marked with {-'e'} at the beginning of the sentence, the meaning then goes "as for (noun).." and the sentence continues. The classic example is: {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} you would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy No, what we know is that you can introduce a law'/puS formula with a noun phrase marked with {-'e'}. AFAIK it's the only one I know of so marked. Other such introductory phrases or clauses [...] are marked with {-meH} [...] or {-mo'} [...] or {-Daq} [...] or {-lu'DI'} [...] or {-lu'chugh)
Such formulaic comparisons are not normal, simple sentences.
But adding these elements is a normal, productive application of the rules given in TKD, and this is supported by the wide variety of syntactic noun phrases and dependent clauses applied to it. I see no reason to suspect that *law'/puS* sentences limit the kinds of these phrases. And it's fairly clear from TKD that another normal application of the rules is to add noun phrases to the fronts of sentences when their syntactic roles are known, whether by suffix or by their identification as time expressions. But pronoun-sentences already have a correct form with a topic, so I don't see the point of avoiding that correct form. It just makes you sound like you're talking backward or in pieces. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (9)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin