De'vID:

QInvam luHevpu''a' latlh? pIm'a' QIn?

*Spam*Daq tetlhvam lulochbogh HochHom QIn'e' vIHev, Landau Martin je QInmey vIHev je. pImbe'. By the way, two short questions: 1. Should *HochHom QIn* be considered singular or plural? 2. I guess there is nothing wrong with *(noun noun je) + noun* as a noun-noun construction? Are there canonical examples? Thank you!

I’d like a clarification. I sometimes have false memories, so I won’t assume that my memory that {HochHom X} would be plural (more than half of whole 0items in the group of items called X) and {X HochHom} would be singular (more than half of one item called X). When before the noun, I thought {HochHom} behaved grammatically like a number, and when following the noun, it acted more like a second noun in a noun-noun construction. I thought that {Hoch} worked the same way. I’m guessing this is similar to numbers in general, since {vagh X} is five Xs, but {X vagh} is a specific item from a group of items called {X}, so that numbers indicate degree of plurality when preceding nouns, and describe a specific, singular noun when they follow it. Again, I can’t cite any canon. I’m not getting all puffed up and righteous about this or seeking conflict or challenging authority. I just thought I understood how this works, and I see a description that doesn’t fit what I thought I understood. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Jan 6, 2022, at 9:00 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 1/6/2022 8:09 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de <mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote:

...

De'vID:

...

QInvam luHevpu''a' latlh? pIm'a' QIn? *Spam*Daq tetlhvam lulochbogh HochHom QIn'e' vIHev, Landau Martin je QInmey vIHev je. pImbe'.

By the way, two short questions:

1. Should *HochHom QIn* be considered singular or plural? Unclear. We might suppose that HochHom X follows the same rule as Hoch X: including a plural suffix means to take most of the X's as a whole, while leaving off a plural suffix means to take most of the X's individually. I would guess, in that case, that the plurality of the phrase depends on whether there is a plural suffix. But we don't know for sure if HochHom follows the same rule; I suggest it only as a default position to take.

...

2. I guess there is nothing wrong with *(noun noun je) + noun* as a noun-noun construction? Are there canonical examples? Nothing wrong with it. A canonical example comes from paq'batlh:

vaSvamDaq tuq veng je quvvaD Heghqangbogh SuvwI' tu'be'lu''a'

Is there nobody in this hall Prepared to die for the honor Of your tribe and city?

-- 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

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It does look like, as you suggest, Okrand has not been sufficiently consistent for rules to be derived with certainty. I could read {Qapla’meywIj Hoch vIta’ta’} as “I have accomplished the whole of my successes.” He’s speaking of all of his successes as one grand accomplishment. Apparently, he felt that honor would have made that accomplishment impossible, suggesting that the accomplishment is a higher priority than honor. No single success would have been more important than honor, but the whole collection of them held more moral mass than the abstract inconvenience of honor. Those who would speak of the importance of honor are, by his perspective, smaller minds with smaller goals. As a Klingon, perhaps I would be content to be such a smaller mind. Anyway, as you suggest, the finer points of the use of {Hoch} and {HochHom} have yet to be laid out for us clearly. Would that Maltz be more forthcoming. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Jan 6, 2022, at 10:33 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 1/6/2022 10:13 AM, Will Martin wrote:

...

I’d like a clarification. I sometimes have false memories, so I won’t assume that my memory that {HochHom X} would be plural (more than half of whole 0items in the group of items called X) and {X HochHom} would be singular (more than half of one item called X). When before the noun, I thought {HochHom} behaved grammatically like a number, and when following the noun, it acted more like a second noun in a noun-noun construction. I thought that {Hoch} worked the same way. We've seen Hoch X and we've seen X HochHom, but I don't think we've seen HochHom X. More in a minute on X Hoch.

We know the rules for Hoch X because Okrand told them to us. Hoch X means each X, taken individually when X has no plural suffix on it, and it means all X's, taken collectively when X has a plural suffix on it. You can call this "grammatically like a number" if you like, but it's a bit more complicated than that.

We've seen X HochHom in canon and its use seems obvious. It means most of X, the majority of X. You can think of it as more like a noun-noun construction than a number if you like. I'm not sure the distinction of "like a number" and "like a noun-noun construction" is necessarily mutually exclusive or useful — that is, I wouldn't want to assign any predictive power to a declaration of being in one category or the other.

We have, for example, the phrase Hoch botlh in paq'batlh, which doesn't mean each center; it's being used as a noun-noun construction, because the translation is center of all.

As for X Hoch, we have an example of that in paq'batlh:

jIlay'DI' reH batlh jIpabchugh Qapla'meywIj Hoch vIta'ta' 'e' DaHar'a' quv vuv nuv pagh ghajbogh neH

Did you think that my word of honor Would have carried me this far? Honor is for those with nothing to lose!

I interpret Qapla'meywIj Hoch as all my successes, to correspond to the English this far. It seems to be exactly identical in meaning to Hoch Qapla'meywIj. The grammar here remains unexplained. All 21 other instances of Hoch in paq'batlh follow known rules.

...

I’m guessing this is similar to numbers in general, since {vagh X} is five Xs, but {X vagh} is a specific item from a group of items called {X}, so that numbers indicate degree of plurality when preceding nouns, and describe a specific, singular noun when they follow it. I wouldn't assume this is parallel. I wouldn't set up a guess as a parallel in order to be able to use the guess as the basis for predicting correct grammar.

-- 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, 6 Jan 2022 at 14:10, <luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote:

De'vID:

...

QInvam luHevpu''a' latlh? pIm'a' QIn?

*Spam*Daq tetlhvam lulochbogh HochHom QIn'e' vIHev, Landau Martin je QInmey vIHev je. pImbe'.

By the way, two short questions:

1. Should *HochHom QIn* be considered singular or plural?

From HolQeD 5:2, we know the following: If {Hoch} is followed by a noun which is explicitly plural, it means "all the Xs" collectively; if it is followed by a noun which is not explicitly plural, it means "each X", considered individually. (see: http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-06-holqed-05-2-a.txt )

From {nIn Hoch} "all [of] the fuel" on p.155 of KGT, we know that {Hoch} following a noun means "all of X".

As for {HochHom}, I assume that it works very similarly to {Hoch} (though this assumption might be proven wrong). We have the phrase {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom} "most of the [Terran] 23rd century" from SkyBox card 15, which is used as a timestamp. We also have {maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom turlu'taHvIS...} "... during most of the first manned lunar landing mission...", where {Qu' wa'DIch HochHom} is singular. In both of our {HochHom} examples, it follows the (singular) noun and has the meaning "most of X". I couldn't find any examples of {HochHom} preceding a noun with the meaning "most of the Xs" (or perhaps "each X out of most of the Xs"). I would guess that {HochHom QInmey} "most of the messages" is plural, and {HochHom QIn} "each message considered individually out of most of them" would be singular, but it's only a guess.

2. I guess there is nothing wrong with *(noun noun je) + noun* as a noun-noun construction? Are there canonical examples?

Yes, {logh chal je 'angweD [qach]} for "planetarium". -- De'vID

I would like to ask two more questions on these subjects: De'vID:  

From {nIn Hoch} "all [of] the fuel" on p.155 of KGT, we know that {Hoch} following a noun means "all of X".

The meaning "all of X" is not restricted to uncountable nouns, right? So I could also say: *paq Hoch*, meaning *all of the book* or *the entire book / the whole of the book*. Me:

2. I guess there is nothing wrong with *(noun noun je) + noun* as a noun-noun construction? Are there canonical examples?

If I understand it right, while the option *(noun noun je) + noun* can't be ambiguous, the opposite *noun + (noun noun je)* could have another interpretation depending on context: *be' Huch paq je* - the woman's money and book [noun + (noun noun je)] the woman's money and the book [(noun + noun) noun je] Am I right? Maybe punctuation could help: *be' Huch, paq je* for the second interpretation? I've also found this canonical example: *quwargh tach Qe' je qoDDaq Hov leng Soj DatIv* (*Enjoy Star Trek themed food and drink at Quark's Bar and Restaurant*). The structure is: [noun + (noun noun je)] + noun. But theoretically, it could also be *at the interior of Quark's Bar and the Restaurant*: [(noun + noun) noun je] + noun. Is that correct? Thank you!

On 1/7/2022 8:42 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

I would like to ask two more questions on these subjects:

De'vID:

...

From {nIn Hoch} "all [of] the fuel" on p.155 of KGT, we know that {Hoch} following a noun means "all of X". The meaning "all of X" is not restricted to uncountable nouns, right? So I could also say: *paq Hoch*, meaning *all of the book* or *the entire book / the whole of the book*.

Yes. If we suppose that *Hoch* following a noun works the same as *HochHom* following a noun has been observed to work, and I do suppose this, then it shouldn't matter whether the noun is countable or uncountable.

Me:

...

2. I guess there is nothing wrong with *(noun noun je) + noun* as a noun-noun construction? Are there canonical examples? If I understand it right, while the option *(noun noun je) + noun* can't be ambiguous, the opposite *noun + (noun noun je)* could have another interpretation depending on context:

*be' Huch paq je* - the woman's money and book [noun + (noun noun je)] the woman's money and the book [(noun + noun) noun je]

Am I right? Maybe punctuation could help: *be' Huch, paq je* for the second interpretation?

I recommend /always/ putting commas between /every/ conjoined noun phrase, even if it's just something like *nuH**, pegh**je vIlegh.* If it is standard to always use commas, then the meaning will never be ambiguous. (*pegh nuH je vIlegh.* Do I see the secret and the weapon, or do I see the secret of the weapon? Did I not use a comma because it's just two simple nouns instead of complex noun phrases, or do I intend a noun-noun phrase? If commas are standard, this question never arises.)

I've also found this canonical example: *quwargh tach Qe' je qoDDaq Hov leng Soj DatIv* (*Enjoy Star Trek themed food and drink at Quark's Bar and Restaurant*). The structure is: [noun + (noun noun je)] + noun. But theoretically, it could also be *at the interior of Quark's Bar and the Restaurant*: [(noun + noun) noun je] + noun. Is that correct?

I feel confident that *quwargh tach Qe' je* is the name of the establishment, and is being treated as a single unit. The *qoDDaq* is very interesting: I suspect it was included to side-step the issue of where to put the *-Daq* on *quwargh tach Qe' je.* Do you say *quwargh tach Qe' jeDaq?* Do you say *quwargh tachDaq Qe'Daq je?* By adding the *qoD,* the problem is avoided. Nothing in the English suggests any reason to call out the interior, specifically. I think it was purely a grammatical trick. Theoretically, this could mean /in the interiors of: Quark's bar; and the restaurant,/ as if the bar and the restaurant are two separate things, the bar being owned by Quark, but that's clearly not what's intended. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/7/2022 11:49 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

SuStel:

...

pegh nuH je vIlegh. Do I see the secret and the weapon, or do I see the secret of the weapon? Did I not use a comma because it's just two simple nouns instead of complex noun phrases, or do I intend a noun-noun phrase?

I can't understand how this ambiguity arises since we have only two nouns joined by {je}.

The only way I can understand "I see the secret of the weapon" is by saying {nuH pegh vIlegh}.

Am I missing something?

No, sorry, that one isn't ambiguous after all; I was forgetting about the *je.* I withdraw that last bit. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/8/2022 11:13 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

SuStel:

...

...

I've also found this canonical example:*quwargh tach Qe' je qoDDaq Hov leng Soj DatIv* (*Enjoy Star Trek themed food and drink at Quark's Bar and Restaurant*). The structure is: [noun + (noun noun je)] + noun. But theoretically, it could also be*at the interior of Quark's Bar and the Restaurant*: [(noun + noun) noun je] + noun. Is that correct? I feel confident that quwargh tach Qe' je is the name of the establishment, and is being treated as a single unit. The qoDDaq is very interesting: I suspect it was included to side-step the issue of where to put the -Daq on quwargh tach Qe' je. Do you say quwargh tach Qe' jeDaq? Do you say quwargh tachDaq Qe'Daq je? By adding the qoD, the problem is avoided. Nothing in the English suggests any reason to call out the interior, specifically. I think it was purely a grammatical trick. If I understand you correctly, where to put the *-Daq* is problematic because*quwargh tach Qe' je* is treated as a single unit, as a*name* (so one could think maybe the *-Daq* comes at the very end).

However, in a case like*be' Huch paq je*, which isn't treated as a unit, if I wanted to say, for example,*because of the woman's money and book*, would this be acceptable:*be' Huchmo' paqmo' je*? I know we put the Type 5 suffix in each conjoined noun (*Huchmo' paqmo' je*), but does it also work when a noun-noun construction is included? And if it does, could*be' Huchmo' paqmo' je* also mean*because of the woman's money and the book*? (DloraH's interpretation being*be'mo' Huch paqmo' je*).

I can't follow what you're asking. Just put the type 5 noun suffixes on the appropriate place of each conjoined item, whether the item is a single noun, a noun-noun construction, a relative clause, a verbally modified noun, or something else. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

Thank you, SuStel and charghwI' for taking the time to answer! charghwI':

I’m guessing that one is seeking an unambiguous expression that controls whether one is to understand that the woman owns the money and the book, or whether the woman owns the money and not the book.

It would be easy to do if not saddled with the additional requirement that this level of unambiguous expression all happen in one phrase.

You're right, that's the problem I'm focusing on. But I'm not trying to avoid ambiguity :-) I just wanted to know if the Klingon expression is ambiguous and how I should understand this ambiguity. SuStel:

I can't follow what you're asking. Just put the type 5 noun suffixes on the appropriate place of each conjoined item, whether the item is a single noun, a noun-noun construction, a relative clause, a verbally modified noun, or something else.

Sorry, I was probably trying to address to many different things at once. Leaving aside *quwargh tach Qe' je* and DloraH's example, what I was trying to ask is: 1. Is this phrase grammatically correct?: *be' Huchmo' paqmo' je*. 2. Without any further context, has that phrase two different meanings?: a. *Because of the woman's money and book* (the woman owns the money and the book, and both the money and the book are the cause of something). b. *Because of the woman's money and the book* (the woman only owns the money, not the book, and both the money and the book are the cause of something - to avoid ambiguity we could use here punctuation: *be' Huchmo', paqmo' je*).

1. Is this phrase grammatically correct?: be' Huchmo' paqmo' je.

Yes.

2. Without any further context, has that phrase two different meanings?: a. Because of the woman's money and book (the woman owns the money and the book, and both the money and the book are the cause of something). b. Because of the woman's money and the book (the woman only owns the money, not the book, and both the money and the book are the cause of something - to avoid ambiguity we could use here punctuation: be' Huchmo', paqmo' je).

The first interpretation is be' (Huchmo' paqmo' je) and the second is (be' Huchmo') paqmo' je. In both cases, the comma should be placed between Huchmo' and paqmo', so be' Huchmo', paqmo' je has the same meaning and the same ambiguity as the version without the comma. (Huchmo' paqmo' cannot be a noun phrase as it has two type-5 suffixes.) A case where the comma does matter is be' Huch paq je, which could be interpreted in three ways: woman-money and book, woman and money-book, and woman, money and book. It is reasonable to think that a comma should never be used between components of a noun-noun construction, so if we want to exclude the "woman-money" meaning, for example, we can write be', Huch paq je. I think it is also reasonable to assume that if comma is used between some noun phrases, it should be used between all, making the phrase unambiguous.

We don’t need a question mark for interrogatives. We do that with question words or the tag {qar’a’?}. We don’t need an exclamation point. We have prefixes and helping words for that. Can you use question marks and exclamation points? If your font supports it, sure, but even that is something we have no advice from Okrand for.

Can commas separate a list of nouns followed by a conjunction so that the lack of commas can indicate noun-noun constructions within the list? Probably, but Okrand never told us anything about the use of commas. We’re making up any rules that we are following in terms of using commas. Klingon pIqaD may use punctuation consistently or it may omit it consistently, or it may use it inconsistently, like Japanese. We simply don’t know because Maltz hasn’t talked about it.

These writing system rules are not canon, and anyone can use whatever rules they want, but using reasonable, consistent and logical rules makes reading text easier. Because the notation we use (the Okrandian notation) is not used by Klingons, Maltz wouldn't have anything to say about it. In the fiction of Klingon, it's a system used by Earth linguists like Okrand and us. As it is not part of the Klingon language, I don't think it even should be something Okrand should canonize. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio https://klingonia.fi/en On Monday, January 10th, 2022 at 14.49, Will Martin willmartin2@mac.com wrote:

I think it is correct and ambiguous, and I think that Okrand has never explained punctuation at all, so I would not count on it to make any difference whatsoever as a tool for disambiguating anything.

When TKD was written, Okrand was operating under the insistence by Okuda, the artistic director for the Star Trek Series, that we know nothing about the Klingon writing system. He insisted on this because he wanted to use pIqaD on Klingon sets without having to consult with anybody. He would just throw some glyphs on ships and consoles that fit his visual aesthetics and be done with it.

So, Okrand used the Romanized Alphabet of his own design as a phonetic representation of spoken Klingon, over which he had domain. Given the merchandise opportunity, a font company came up with a font with the 13 glyphs that Okuda used which could only be used to make pretty gibberish, or you could use Okrand’s system, which no Klingon would understand, but humans who wanted to understand spoken Klingon could use to write down Klingon for recording or communicating with/for humans.

Later, fans came up with what we now recognize as pIqaD with a full set of characters, and eventually “merchandise” appeal won over Okuda’s objections and trading cards and at least one poster were sold with pIqaD that actually can be read.

But TKD tells you nothing about the use of punctuation, and Okrand has never subsequently talked about it. It just appears, like a sort of seasoning that cooks use for food without ever noting it in a recipe.

You can use punctuation and it can help make sentence structure clearer in some cases by defining the boundaries between phrases so that a word that could be the subject of a preceding phrase or the object of a following phrase more clearly one or the other, but that’s about as bold as you can get in terms of claiming that punctuation could change the meaning of a sentence.

We don’t need a question mark for interrogatives. We do that with question words or the tag {qar’a’?}. We don’t need an exclamation point. We have prefixes and helping words for that. Can you use question marks and exclamation points? If your font supports it, sure, but even that is something we have no advice from Okrand for.

Can commas separate a list of nouns followed by a conjunction so that the lack of commas can indicate noun-noun constructions within the list? Probably, but Okrand never told us anything about the use of commas. We’re making up any rules that we are following in terms of using commas. Klingon pIqaD may use punctuation consistently or it may omit it consistently, or it may use it inconsistently, like Japanese. We simply don’t know because Maltz hasn’t talked about it.

...

On Jan 10, 2022, at 6:25 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

Thank you, SuStel and charghwI' for taking the time to answer!

charghwI':

...

I’m guessing that one is seeking an unambiguous expression that controls whether one is to understand that the woman owns the money and the book, or whether the woman owns the money and not the book.

...

It would be easy to do if not saddled with the additional requirement that this level of unambiguous expression all happen in one phrase.

You're right, that's the problem I'm focusing on. But I'm not trying to avoid ambiguity :-) I just wanted to know if the Klingon expression is ambiguous and how I should understand this ambiguity.

SuStel:

...

I can't follow what you're asking. Just put the type 5 noun suffixes on the appropriate place of each conjoined item, whether the item is a single noun, a noun-noun construction, a relative clause, a verbally modified noun, or something else.

Sorry, I was probably trying to address to many different things at once. Leaving aside quwargh tach Qe' je and DloraH's example, what I was trying to ask is:

-

Is this phrase grammatically correct?: be' Huchmo' paqmo' je.

-

Without any further context, has that phrase two different meanings?:

a. Because of the woman's money and book (the woman owns the money and the book, and both the money and the book are the cause of something).

b. Because of the woman's money and the book (the woman only owns the money, not the book, and both the money and the book are the cause of something - to avoid ambiguity we could use here punctuation: be' Huchmo', paqmo' je).

tlhIngan-Hol mailing list

tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org

http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

tlhIngan-Hol mailing list

tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org

http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 1/10/2022 9:49 AM, Will Martin wrote:

We know that Klingon speakers are not bothered by repetition of words for clarity, so it occurs to me that you could say {be’ Huchmo’ be’ paqmo’ je…} as a way of disambiguating that the woman owns both the money and the book.

This is also what I would suggest.

We probably use commas between items in a list of nouns joined with “and” because this probably evolved from saying “A and B and C and D” and we got tired of repeating the “and” and decided to just briefly pause for the omitted “and”s and indicate the pause with commas: “A, B, C and D”, and then some professor at Oxford decided that there should be another comma added in front of remaining “and”, even though nothing is omitted there.

Er... no, naming lists was a thing long before English existed. I daresay that naming lists probably existed before conjunctions did. Certainly the Oxford comma, also called the serial comma, doesn't exist just because "some professor at Oxford" decided it should. The term /Oxford comma/ didn't exist until 1978. It was so named because the author was referencing the /Oxford Style Manual./ https://www.scribendi.com/academy/articles/oxford_comma_importance.en.html#:....

By fiat, we now have to say, “A, B, C, and D”.

It's not by fiat, and it's not required. There are other styles. Some style guides argue against the serial comma. Sometimes you want to emphasize the conjunctions by including them between every term. There are all sorts of ways this can be said. You're making the situation sound like it has been ordered by a dictator. Individual publications may and should have rules as to what style they require, but this is not the same thing as freely writing to, say, a mailing list. If you're writing for a publisher, you follow the publisher's rules. If you're not writing for a publisher, you write how you want to write.

So, the less you rely on punctuation in written Klingon to clarify your meaning, likely the greater your authority on getting it right.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Use punctuation liberally to clarify your meaning, because text lacks the cues that one adds to speech. Use punctuation because your words will often be ambiguous even if they are the absolute best way to express something. Use punctuation because a wordsmith who does not use every tool in his or her bag crafts an inferior product. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/10/2022 10:41 AM, Will Martin wrote:

I think we disagree less than you think. Yes, punctuate liberally in order to make yourself as clear as possible TO YOUR AUDIENCE. In this case, the audience is a group of humans who are learning Klingon as a non-primary language. Those humans may better understand what you write because of your use of punctuation that fits the conventions of the not-Klingon language common to members of your audience.

What I object to is the suggestion that we have the slightest clue how punctuation is used by Klingons when they write using their native language.

No one is talking about that. Luis is asking how /he/ should write things to /us,/ the Klingon-speaking people of the real world. We have no canonical information on punctuation in *pIqaD,* or really anything else about it. Worf saying /teehongee jee!/ is more informative to us than any Klingon writing we've seen prior to /Star Trek: Discovery./

This message's thread was driven by a person who seemed to be seeking the authoritative, generalizable rules for using punctuation in a specific instance as a kind of formula for using punctuation properly. I think that person needs to realize that there are no known rules for the use of punctuation in Klingon. I really think he intended to take what advice we give as an anchor point for future use of “correct” punctuation, and as a student, he needs to know that there is no “correct” use of punctuation in Klingon.

No, I don't think that's what Luis has been asking. He's concerned with groupings of noun phrases and what ways they can be interpreted. Punctuation was offered as a tool for disambiguating and clarifying, but it doesn't reach the core of what Luis has been asking. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

be' Huch paq je and be' Huchmo' paqmo' je are both grammatically correct and ambiguous (by the way, any canonical examples of these structures?).

Here is an example from Skybox Cards where {Duj} modifies both {nuH pat} and {Hub pat}: HoS law'qu' luch law'qu' je lo' Duj nuH pat Hub pat je. A huge amount of the ship's power and technology is devoted to its weapons grid and defensive systems. And here is an example of type-5 suffixes used with {je} from paq'batlh: 'ej Hoch vengHomDaq Hoch vengDaq je Suchbogh ghaH qeylIS luQoy woQ le'yo' je 'aghbej ghaH And Kahless spoke to them In every village and city he went, Filled with pride and authority,

A noun can modify in a noun-noun construction two or more conjoined nouns (even if these conjoined nouns have type-5 suffixes). Therefore, one of the possible interpretations of the phrases above is: the woman's money and book / because of the woman's money and book.

Yes, as the SkyBox example shows. It doesn't have type-5 suffixes, but I don't think we have any reason to believe it couldn't.

To avoid ambiguity we could use (human) punctuation: be' Huch, paq je for the woman's money and the book or be', Huch, paq je for the woman, the money and the book, and so on.

If we assume that a comma should not be placed inside a noun-noun construct, {be', Huch, paq je} with two commas would be unambiguous. However, {be' Huch, paq je} would still be ambiguous. If woman has both money and the book, the comma must be between {Huch} and {paq}, as they are the two conjoined nouns. If we talk about the woman's money and the book, the conjoined nouns are {be' Huch} and {paq}, and the comma is still in the same location.

Or we could recast: be' Huch, be' paq je for the woman's money and book or Huch ghaj be', Huchvam paq je for the woman's money and the book, and so on.

This is okay, if we want the phrase to be unambiguous. Other way would be {paq, be' Huch je}. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio https://klingonia.fi/en On Tuesday, January 11th, 2022 at 13.20, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

Thank you, Iikka Hauhio, charghwI' and SuStel for your detailed posts!

SuStel:

...

...

I think we disagree less than you think. Yes, punctuate liberally in order to make yourself as clear as possible TO YOUR AUDIENCE. In this case, the audience is a group of humans who are learning Klingon as a non-primary language. Those humans may better understand what you write because of your use of punctuation that fits the conventions of the not-Klingon language common to members of your audience.

...

...

What I object to is the suggestion that we have the slightest clue how punctuation is used by Klingons when they write using their native language.

...

No one is talking about that. Luis is asking how he should write things to us, the Klingon-speaking people of the real world.

We have no canonical information on punctuation in pIqaD, or really anything else about it. Worf saying teehongee jee! is more informative to us than any Klingon writing we've seen prior to Star Trek: Discovery.

I wouldn't dare to write anything to a Klingon, so yes, I just wanted to know if punctuation could help us humans to better communicate in Klingon :-) Thanks to all of you, however, for the very interesting insight into this topic and its background.

...

No, I don't think that's what Luis has been asking. He's concerned with groupings of noun phrases and what ways they can be interpreted. Punctuation was offered as a tool for disambiguating and clarifying, but it doesn't reach the core of what Luis has been asking.

Since this thread got a bit long, I would like to summarize, to see if I've understood it properly:

1.be' Huch paq je and be' Huchmo' paqmo' je are both grammatically correct and ambiguous (by the way, any canonical examples of these structures?).

-

A noun can modify in a noun-noun construction two or more conjoined nouns (even if these conjoined nouns have type-5 suffixes). Therefore, one of the possible interpretations of the phrases above is: the woman's money and book / because of the woman's money and book.

-

To avoid ambiguity we could use (human) punctuation: be' Huch, paq je for the woman's money and the book or be', Huch, paq je for the woman, the money and the book, and so on.

-

Or we could recast: be' Huch, be' paq je for the woman's money and book or Huch ghaj be', Huchvam paq je for the woman's money and the book, and so on.

tlhIngan-Hol mailing list

tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org

http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On Jan 12, 2022, at 6:08 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

Thank you again for your detailed answer, Iikka!

...

If we assume that a comma should not be placed inside a noun-noun construct, {be', Huch, paq je} with two commas would be unambiguous. However, {be' Huch, paq je} would still be ambiguous. If woman has both money and the book, the comma must be between {Huch} and {paq}, as they are the two conjoined nouns. If we talk about the woman's money and the book, the conjoined nouns are {be' Huch} and {paq}, and the comma is still in the same location.

I understand your point, but (as a beginner) I was actually thinking on a different possibility:

*be' Huch paq je* - the woman's money and book

While there’s a logic behind this, you are implying that no comma means two different things here. No comma between two nouns in a noun-noun construction, and no comma between two nouns that would normally have a comma between them in a noun-noun-conjunction construction, if such a convention exists (and it doesn’t). So the lack of commas between {be’} and {Huch} means something different than the lack of commas between {Huch} and {paq}. Really? And you expect us to figure that out on the fly? We’d just as well start using hyphens. I mean, we call it a “noun-noun” construction. We don’t call it a “noun noun” construction. So why don’t we say {be’-Huch paq je} instead of {be’ Huch paq je}? Meanwhile, I think it would be clearer to say {be’ Huch be’ paq je} than to say {be’ Huch paq je} if what you want is “The woman’s money and book”. I think it would be remarkably and dramatically more clear. Why? Because it is clearer whether it is written or spoken, and this writing system is supposed to be a representation of spoken Klingon. So, why not favor a version that would be as clear spoken as written? You can’t hear commas.

*be' Huch, paq je* - the woman's money and the book *be', Huch paq je* - the woman and the money's book *be', Huch, paq je* - the woman, the money and the book

I like this stylistic use of comma, though I do not believe it is a convention that has as yet been adopted. Perhaps we should adopt it. It does assume that verbal Klingon pauses between conjoined nouns. I’m not sure this is the case. It would be nice if it were the case. I’m not sure there is any canon to confirm this.

Of course, in most cases context will clarify, but I would like to know if there is some kind of general consensus on how to use (human) punctuation, in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.

I’m less sure that in most cases context WILL clarify than it is that we SAY that context clarifies because it COULD clarify and we are lazy and would prefer that it clarifies than have to go to the effort of explicitly saying something to clarify what we mean. Most of the time that people get irritated by me, it’s when I suggest methods for expressing things, INCLUDING the context to make things clear.

Thank you! _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

To be honest, I wasn’t suggesting hyphens as something outrageous. I just thought it was interesting that we use the term “noun-noun” without actually putting hyphens between the words we refer to by that name. If people want to start doing it, great. I like the idea. I just didn’t expect any traction were I to recommend it. It could even work with simple possessives, linking Proper Nouns to the nouns they posses. {SuStel-chupta’ghach vIparHa’.}

On Jan 12, 2022, at 8:00 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

 On 1/12/2022 7:03 PM, Will Martin wrote:

...

We’d just as well start using hyphens. I mean, we call it a “noun-noun” construction. We don’t call it a “noun noun” construction. So why don’t we say {be’-Huch paq je} instead of {be’ Huch paq je}? Read The Lord of the Rings. That's exactly what J.R.R. Tolkien does in his style of English. Genitive nouns are hyphenated with a head noun where we, in our modern American styles, do not do so. So the suggestion is not an outrageous one. And Tolkien was not affecting some special style of writing; that was how educated Englishmen wrote in the early twentieth century.

Examples: bogey-stories, tunnel-gate, tree-trunks, forest-roof, tree-tops, wood-parsely, fire-weed, hill-top, island-shores, willow-leaves. And those are just those I happened to find in a few pages from a spot chosen randomly.

...

Meanwhile, I think it would be clearer to say {be’ Huch be’ paq je} than to say {be’ Huch paq je} if what you want is “The woman’s money and book”. I think it would be remarkably and dramatically more clear. Why? Because it is clearer whether it is written or spoken, and this writing system is supposed to be a representation of spoken Klingon. So, why not favor a version that would be as clear spoken as written? You can’t hear commas. Of course you can. Commas nearly always correspond to pauses in speech. But you can also include them to group words together. be'... Huch paq je the woman's money-and-book.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org