Since I haven't written klingon for a few months, and I have become quite rusty, I started studying some canon sentences. So I came across this sentence: {cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu' 'ej tep choQ bIngDaq lo' law' bID choQ tu'lu'} 2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck KBoP. I can't understand the placement of the first {tu'lu'}. If I was asked to translate the first sentence without knowing the translation given, I would write: {cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu'} two full decks there are {'ej tep choQ bIngDaq} and at the area below the cargo deck {lo' law' bID choQ tu'lu'} a half utility deck there is Perhaps, alternatively we could have the {bIngDaq} referring to both the two full decks AND at the cargo deck: {cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu' 'ej tep choQ bIngDaq} at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck. But this would make sense if we didn't have the {tu'lu'}, let alone that even without the {tu'lu'} instead of the {'ej} we would need to have {je}: {cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq} at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck. The only way I can make sense of the klingon sentence is as it is describing the bop, and saying "there are two full decks (and then) under the cargo deck (there is) a half utility deck. qunnoq
On 5 July 2017 at 11:52, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Since I haven't written klingon for a few months, and I have become quite rusty, I started studying some canon sentences.
So I came across this sentence:
{cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu' 'ej tep choQ bIngDaq lo' law' bID choQ tu'lu'} 2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck KBoP.
I can't understand the placement of the first {tu'lu'}. If I was asked to translate the first sentence without knowing the translation given, I would write:
{cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu'} two full decks there are
"There are two full decks..."
{'ej tep choQ bIngDaq} and at the area below the cargo deck
{lo' law' bID choQ tu'lu'} a half utility deck there is
"... and under the cargo deck, there is a half utility deck."
Perhaps, alternatively we could have the {bIngDaq} referring to both the two full decks AND at the cargo deck:
{cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu' 'ej tep choQ bIngDaq} at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck.
No, that doesn't work, because {'ej} has to join two sentences. Furthermore, what is {bIngDaq} doing there?
But this would make sense if we didn't have the {tu'lu'}, let alone that even without the {tu'lu'} instead of the {'ej} we would need to have {je}:
{cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq} at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck.
That doesn't work either, because only the half utility deck is under the cargo deck. Again, what is the grammatical role of {bIngDaq} here?
The only way I can make sense of the klingon sentence is as it is describing the bop, and saying "there are two full decks (and then) under the cargo deck (there is) a half utility deck.
And just what is wrong with this? -- De'vID
jIH:
{cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq} at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck. De'vID: That doesn't work either, because only the half utility deck is under the cargo deck. Again, what is the grammatical role of {bIngDaq} here?
If we leave aside the intended meaning of the bird of prey poster, would you accept as grammatically correct the {cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq} for "at the area below of two full decks and a cargo deck" ? jIH:
The only way I can make sense of the klingon sentence is as it is describing the bop, and saying "there are two full decks (and then) under the cargo deck (there is) a half utility deck. De'vID: And just what is wrong with this?
Perhaps my problem has to do with the way I understand the english translation. Let me put it another way. The way I understand the english translation, it means that "there is the cargo deck and then there are 2 full decks and a half utility deck" (cargo deck --> two full decks & half utility deck) The way I understand the klingon sentence, it means that "there are two full decks, then the cargo deck and then the half utility deck" (two full decks --> cargo deck --> half utility deck) On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:01 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5 July 2017 at 11:52, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Since I haven't written klingon for a few months, and I have become quite rusty, I started studying some canon sentences.
So I came across this sentence:
{cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu' 'ej tep choQ bIngDaq lo' law' bID choQ tu'lu'} 2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck KBoP.
I can't understand the placement of the first {tu'lu'}. If I was asked to translate the first sentence without knowing the translation given, I would write:
{cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu'} two full decks there are
"There are two full decks..."
{'ej tep choQ bIngDaq} and at the area below the cargo deck
{lo' law' bID choQ tu'lu'} a half utility deck there is
"... and under the cargo deck, there is a half utility deck."
Perhaps, alternatively we could have the {bIngDaq} referring to both the two full decks AND at the cargo deck:
{cha' choQmey naQ tu'lu' 'ej tep choQ bIngDaq} at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck.
No, that doesn't work, because {'ej} has to join two sentences. Furthermore, what is {bIngDaq} doing there?
But this would make sense if we didn't have the {tu'lu'}, let alone that even without the {tu'lu'} instead of the {'ej} we would need to have {je}:
{cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq} at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck.
That doesn't work either, because only the half utility deck is under the cargo deck. Again, what is the grammatical role of {bIngDaq} here?
The only way I can make sense of the klingon sentence is as it is describing the bop, and saying "there are two full decks (and then) under the cargo deck (there is) a half utility deck.
And just what is wrong with this?
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5 July 2017 at 12:25, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
{cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq} at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck.
De'vID:
That doesn't work either, because only the half utility deck is under the cargo deck. Again, what is the grammatical role of {bIngDaq} here?
If we leave aside the intended meaning of the bird of prey poster, would you accept as grammatically correct the {cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq} for "at the area below of two full decks and a cargo deck" ?
Yes.
jIH:
The only way I can make sense of the klingon sentence is as it is describing the bop, and saying "there are two full decks (and then) under the cargo deck (there is) a half utility deck. De'vID: And just what is wrong with this?
Perhaps my problem has to do with the way I understand the english translation. Let me put it another way.
The way I understand the english translation, it means that "there is the cargo deck and then there are 2 full decks and a half utility deck" (cargo deck --> two full decks & half utility deck)
The way I understand the klingon sentence, it means that "there are two full decks, then the cargo deck and then the half utility deck" (two full decks --> cargo deck --> half utility deck)
The English sentence says: "(2 Full Decks) and (a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck)" You're misreading it as: "(2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck) under the Cargo Deck" Presumably, the actual poster makes clear what the relationship is between the cargo deck and the full decks, but context and logic should tell you that your interpretation of the English doesn't make sense: it can't be the case that there are 2 full decks under the cargo deck, because then the cargo deck would itself have to be a full deck (and thus you'd have to say that there are 3 full decks, one of which is the cargo deck, and the other 2 are under it). The Klingon sentence is clear, here. -- De'vID
De'vID:
The English sentence says: "(2 Full Decks) and (a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck)" You're misreading it as: "(2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck) under the Cargo Deck"
Oh, I see.. So that was the problem. Finally I understand. Thanks. qunnoq On 5 Jul 2017 5:37 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5 July 2017 at 12:25, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
{cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq} at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck.
De'vID:
That doesn't work either, because only the half utility deck is under the cargo deck. Again, what is the grammatical role of {bIngDaq} here?
If we leave aside the intended meaning of the bird of prey poster, would you accept as grammatically correct the {cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq} for "at the area below of two full decks and a cargo deck" ?
Yes.
jIH:
The only way I can make sense of the klingon sentence is as it is describing the bop, and saying "there are two full decks (and then) under the cargo deck (there is) a half utility deck. De'vID: And just what is wrong with this?
Perhaps my problem has to do with the way I understand the english translation. Let me put it another way.
The way I understand the english translation, it means that "there is the cargo deck and then there are 2 full decks and a half utility deck" (cargo deck --> two full decks & half utility deck)
The way I understand the klingon sentence, it means that "there are two full decks, then the cargo deck and then the half utility deck" (two full decks --> cargo deck --> half utility deck)
The English sentence says: "(2 Full Decks) and (a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck)"
You're misreading it as: "(2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck) under the Cargo Deck"
Presumably, the actual poster makes clear what the relationship is between the cargo deck and the full decks, but context and logic should tell you that your interpretation of the English doesn't make sense: it can't be the case that there are 2 full decks under the cargo deck, because then the cargo deck would itself have to be a full deck (and thus you'd have to say that there are 3 full decks, one of which is the cargo deck, and the other 2 are under it).
The Klingon sentence is clear, here.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (2)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunenoS