using "right" (side) and "left" (side) with possessive suffixes on their own
Ca'Non mu'tlheghvam yIlaD: poSDaq nIHDaq je QamtaHvIS SuvwI'pu', chaH jojDaq yItnIS lopwI' The initiate must pass through a gauntlet of warriors. S9 'ej tera' poH DaSjaj, jar wa'maH, jaj wa'maH loSDIch, DIS cha'-pagh-wa'-Hut (14 October 2019) lInpu' voragh: (Qov, reporting on qep'a' 2015, 8/05/2015): I asked [Okrand] about how we would describe someone’s right hand. I said I would say {nIHwIj ghop} "the hand of my right side" and he said "I would do that too," making a dissatisfied face about the alternative {nIH ghopwIj} "my hand of the right side". I asked "or are {nIH} and {poS} like {tlhop} and {‘em}, taking the pronoun rather than the possessive suffix?" but he felt that {nIHwIj} was correct. DaH jIghel.. jIjatlh vIneH "one of you will stand on my left, and one of you will stand on my right"; cha' DuH tu'lu': DuH wa': poSwIjDaq QamnIS wa', 'ej nIHwIjDaq QamnIS latlh one needs to stand on my left, and the other needs to stand on my right DuH cha': poSwIj DaqDaq QamnIS wa', 'ej poSwIj DaqDaq QamnIS latlh one needs to stand at the location of my left, and the other needs to stand at the location of my right nuq 'oH DuH lugh'e'? lugh DuH wa' 'e' vI'ir, S9 Ca'Non mu'tlhegh vIqeltaHvIS, 'ach lugh DuH cha' 'e' vI'Ir, 08/05/2015 De' vIqeltaHvIS.. ~ Qa'yIn
I found some things in my notes you may find instructive: (MSN expert.forum 9/1997): As for how to use {Sum} "be near, nearby" -- that will require some more time with Maltz. {Do' Sum matlh}. I would think, however, that it would work the same way as {Hop} "be far". Okrand eventually found Maltz and a year later he discussed the issue with Will Martin (HolQeD, Dec. 1998: p. 9-10): MO: Using the verbs {Sum} and {Hop} involves this concept [of deixis]. WM: So I could not say {raSvam vISum} to say, "I am near the table". MO: No. You'd just say {Sum raS}. The verb {Sum} implies that the speaker is the one the subject is near at the time of speaking. Hop jabwI'. The waiter is far from me right now. WM: Well, that resolves the conflict otherwise created if they could take objects. It keeps them stative, so you can say, {HIvje' Sum yItlhap}. MO: Yes. WM: Otherwise, they'd be the only verbs we'd sometimes use as adjectives and other times use transitively. MO: Take an object. Yes. WM: So, could that deictic anchor be shifted by using an indirect object? Like if I wanted to say, "You are near the table", could I say {SoHvaD Sum raS}? MO: No. You'd use {-Daq}: {SoHDaq Sum raS}. This throws the orientation away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener (marked, stated: "at you, where you are"). But you don't always need to state this overtly. Context is critical. For example: {qagh largh SuvwI' ghung. Sum qagh 'e' Sov}. "The hungry warrior smells the gagh. He/she knows the gagh is nearby." The only interpretation of this (absent other information) is that the warrior knows the gagh is near the warrior, not the warrior knows the gagh is near the speaker of the sentences. If context isn't clear, you can clarify: Question: Sum'a' raS? Is the table near (me)? (Am I near the table?) Answer: HIja'. Sum raS. Yes. The table is near (you). Answer: ghobe'. jIHDaq Sum raS. No. The table is near me. WM: And could I say {maSumchuq}? MO: No. You'd just say {bISum} or {SuSum}. If you haven't, in the course of the conversation, set things up otherwise, it's assumed that the event being talked about is taking place where the speaker is. In fact, {jISum} alone probably would make no everyday sense to a Klingon. "I am near me." But it does have an idiomatic philosophical sense, something like "I'm in touch with my inner self" (but in a Klingon sort of way, of course). And a later note: (qurgh < MO, qep’a’ 2017): [{Hay} "area beyond" (n.) is] normally used with a point of reference: beyond X. When asked about "area nearby" Maltz wasn’t sure what was being asked and said to make use of the verb {Sum} "be nearby". -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -----Original Message----------Original Message----------Original Message----------Original Message From: mayqel qunen'oS Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 7:25 AM Ca'Non mu'tlheghvam yIlaD: poSDaq nIHDaq je QamtaHvIS SuvwI'pu', chaH jojDaq yItnIS lopwI' The initiate must pass through a gauntlet of warriors. S9 'ej tera' poH DaSjaj, jar wa'maH, jaj wa'maH loSDIch, DIS cha'-pagh-wa'-Hut (14 October 2019) lInpu' voragh: (Qov, reporting on qep'a' 2015, 8/05/2015): I asked [Okrand] about how we would describe someone’s right hand. I said I would say {nIHwIj ghop} "the hand of my right side" and he said "I would do that too," making a dissatisfied face about the alternative {nIH ghopwIj} "my hand of the right side". I asked "or are {nIH} and {poS} like {tlhop} and {‘em}, taking the pronoun rather than the possessive suffix?" but he felt that {nIHwIj} was correct. DaH jIghel.. jIjatlh vIneH "one of you will stand on my left, and one of you will stand on my right"; cha' DuH tu'lu': DuH wa': poSwIjDaq QamnIS wa', 'ej nIHwIjDaq QamnIS latlh one needs to stand on my left, and the other needs to stand on my right DuH cha': poSwIj DaqDaq QamnIS wa', 'ej poSwIj DaqDaq QamnIS latlh one needs to stand at the location of my left, and the other needs to stand at the location of my right nuq 'oH DuH lugh'e'? lugh DuH wa' 'e' vI'ir, S9 Ca'Non mu'tlhegh vIqeltaHvIS, 'ach lugh DuH cha' 'e' vI'Ir, 08/05/2015 De' vIqeltaHvIS.. ~ Qa'yIn
qatlho', voragh. Sojvam vIQubqa'pu', 'ej chaq lugh DuH wa' DuH cha' *je*. {poSDaq nIHDaq je} lo'chugh S9 mu'tlhegh, 'ej {poSDaq} retlhDaq pagh latlh DIp lanchugh, vaj ghaytan {nIHwIjDaq} neH jatlhchugh nuv, Qaghbe' nuvvam. teH, {poSwIj DaqDaq} jatlhchugh nuv, lugh DuHvam je, 'ej chaq DuH'e' wIvbogh nuv wuq nuvvam ngoQ. "at my left" neH jatlhnISchugh nuv, {poSwIjDaq} neH jatlh, 'a "at the location of my left" jatlhnISchugh, vaj {poSwIj DaqDaq} jatlh. pojvammo' - 'ej Qochchugh pagh - lugh je {poSwIjDaq} 'e' vIHarchoH. 'ach klingon.wiki vInaw'taHvIS, pa' vay' jum vItu'pu'.. http://klingon.wiki/En/ILoveYou DaqDaq mu'tlhegh veb tu'lu': bIpotlhchu'; DeS nIHwIj Darur. You are clearly important; you resemble my "right arm". {bIpotlhchu'; nIH DeSwIj Darur} 'oHnISbe''a' mu'tlheghvam ? ~ Qa'yIn
I personally interpret {poS} and {nIH} to be spacially deictic references, so adding {-Daq} is somewhat redundant, but okay, and adding {-wIj} is also somewhat redundant, unless context might suggest other than first person, but again, this is okay. Adding the separate noun {Daq} is going farther in redundancy than I would go, though I lack any claim to authority to declare that as official. Okrand could easily declare otherwise. I would prefer {bIpotlhchu’; nIHwIj DeS} to anything that puts the possessive suffix on {DeS}, unless you, through context, are trying to refer to someone ELSE’S right side, where they might find my arm, as in, “We are facing each other and I’m talking about my left arm, which is on your right.” I read it as “You are perfectly important; You resemble the right’s my arm, or my arm of the right,” instead of the more common “You are perfectly important; You resemble my right’s arm, or the arm of my right.” If that other version is canon, Do’Ha’. I honestly think Okrand must have been less mindful than usual when he came up with it, and so, we are stuck with ugly canon. It happens. {DeS nIHwIj} means “The arm’s my right”, suggesting the side of someone’s arm that is toward my right. We’re talking about the half of an arm that is on my right. We don’t know where the arm is. We only know that it has a side that is toward my right. {nIH DeSwIj} means “the right side’s my arm” or “my arm of the right side”. Lacking context, one might presume by deictic trend that we’re talking about the speaker’s right, but the possessive is placed on the arm, not the right, so context could also suggest that we’re talking about some other person’s right. I really prefer {nIHwIj DeS}. It’s my right side’s arm. It’s the arm of my right side. Unless context heavily suggests that we’re talking about somebody else’s arm, it’s pretty clear that we’re talking about my right arm. But I’m probably completely wrong and about to be Klingonsplained. Yep. I’m a pot, calling a kettle black. Guilty as charged. At least it wards off the pandemic boredom, right? Let us entertain you. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 2, 2020, at 10:51 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
qatlho', voragh.
Sojvam vIQubqa'pu', 'ej chaq lugh DuH wa' DuH cha' *je*. {poSDaq nIHDaq je} lo'chugh S9 mu'tlhegh, 'ej {poSDaq} retlhDaq pagh latlh DIp lanchugh, vaj ghaytan {nIHwIjDaq} neH jatlhchugh nuv, Qaghbe' nuvvam. teH, {poSwIj DaqDaq} jatlhchugh nuv, lugh DuHvam je, 'ej chaq DuH'e' wIvbogh nuv wuq nuvvam ngoQ. "at my left" neH jatlhnISchugh nuv, {poSwIjDaq} neH jatlh, 'a "at the location of my left" jatlhnISchugh, vaj {poSwIj DaqDaq} jatlh.
pojvammo' - 'ej Qochchugh pagh - lugh je {poSwIjDaq} 'e' vIHarchoH. 'ach klingon.wiki vInaw'taHvIS, pa' vay' jum vItu'pu'..
http://klingon.wiki/En/ILoveYou DaqDaq mu'tlhegh veb tu'lu':
bIpotlhchu'; DeS nIHwIj Darur. You are clearly important; you resemble my "right arm".
{bIpotlhchu'; nIH DeSwIj Darur} 'oHnISbe''a' mu'tlheghvam ?
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
Will Martin