Maybe it's because I first encountered the word in the context of one's reaction to people, but I always associate {par} with the idea of disliking a person, and not an action. If I wanted to say, "I like to cook" I would be more likely to use {tIv} 'to enjoy': {jIvut 'e' vItIv}. I've occasionally used {-qang}, in analogy to the German use of "gern": {'Iwchab vISopqang} "I like to eat blood pie". ter'eS From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] KLBC - How to say "I like to do/doing something" #yiv4577579291 #yiv4577579291 -- _filtered #yiv4577579291 {font-family:Courier;panose-1:2 7 4 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;} _filtered #yiv4577579291 {panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;} _filtered #yiv4577579291 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4577579291 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4577579291 {panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}#yiv4577579291 #yiv4577579291 p.yiv4577579291MsoNormal, #yiv4577579291 li.yiv4577579291MsoNormal, #yiv4577579291 div.yiv4577579291MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4577579291 a:link, #yiv4577579291 span.yiv4577579291MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4577579291 a:visited, #yiv4577579291 span.yiv4577579291MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4577579291 span.yiv4577579291EmailStyle17 {color:#44546A;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv4577579291 .yiv4577579291MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv4577579291 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4577579291 div.yiv4577579291WordSection1 {}#yiv4577579291 (KGT 71):  Among Klingons, pleasure is deemed quite unessential for one's well-being. More frequently, the appreciation of music is expressed in terms of something that music does to the listener rather than in terms of the listener's reaction. Thus, music is said to embolden (jaqmoH), excite (SeymoH), encourage (tungHa'), or to stimulate or inspire (pIlmoH)." Also consider: bel                 be pleased (v) belHa'         be displeased (v) belHa'moH      displease (v)     chobelHa'moH, DI'qar.   You disappoint (lit. “displease”) me, D'Kar.  (STConst p.259)   belmoH [please (someone)] (v)  qabelmoH'a' Do I please you? (i.e. Do you like me?) PK lIbelmoH paqvam 'e' vItul we hope that you will be pleased with the results. (Vincent Van Gerven Oei's speech at qepHom wa'maHDIch)     tlhIHvaD paq chu' wImuch 'e' bochaw'mo' chequvmoH 'ej chebelmoH.     lut'a'raj Dun laDlaHmeH tera'ngan, tera'Daq tlhIngan lut'a' paq wa'Dich     wIchenmoHta', lut'a' 'oH paq'batlh'e'.     It is a great honor and pleasure that you have allowed us to present you with     the first Terran edition of your glorious epic, the paq'batlh.     (also from Vincent's speech) Using the noun {bel} “pleasure, joy” may also be productive.  E.g.   'utbe' bel    Pleasure is nonessential. TKW    lenglIj lutebjaj lengwIjvaD bel rap, Sov rap, ngoQ    rap je Danobpu'bogh.    May your journey be filled with the same joy, wisdom,    and purpose you have given mine. (Frasier)   As for omitting {‘e’} -- don’t.  {neH} is the only exception in SAOs:   (TKD 66f.):  When the verb of the second sentence is {neH} “want”, neither {'e'} nor {net} is used, but the construction is otherwise identical to that just described.   As far as we know this usage is unique to {neH}.  While "I like that I cook" or "The Vulcan doesn't like that he fights" may sound awkward in English, they don’t in Klingon. --Voragh On Behalf OfAurélie Demonchaux Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 6:32 AM I've been wondering, what's the correct way to express liking / disliking an activity? For example, saying: "I like to cook" or "The Vulcan doesn't like to fight"   We have some examples of <par> and <parHa'> being used with nouns or pronouns but I can't find any canon source where they apply to verbs.   Do you use {'e'} or nothing in those cases? As in:   <jIvut vIparHa'> vs <jIvut ’e’ vIparHa'>   <Suv par vulqangan> vs <Suv ’e’ par vulqangan>   My "feeling" would be to use no ’e’ , similar to the construction with <want> (neH), because 'e' is the equivalent of "that", so using it would mean "I like that I cook" / "The Vulcan doesn't like that he fights", implying that the cooking/fighting is actually happening now, instead of stating "I like cooking in general"/"the Vulcan doesn't like fighting in general" (but I'm not necessarily cooking right now and the Vulcan is not fighting right now either).   What do you think?   _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Thanks very much for your detailed replies and clarifications, this is very helpful! I think I get it now, the ’e’ just needs to be there regardless of how we might backtranslate it in English. Thanks also for sharing alternatives to <parHa'> - I'll definitely take good note of them for future use! tlhIngan Hol vIghoj ’e’ vItIv ;) 2017-02-09 19:25 GMT+01:00 Lieven <levinius@gmx.de>:

Okay, since others have broken the KLBC-barrier already, and our current BG may be at shore leave, I'll answer this:

Am 09.02.2017 um 13:31 schrieb Aurélie Demonchaux:

...

We have some examples of <par> and <parHa'> being used with nouns or pronouns but I can't find any canon source where they apply to verbs.

Do you use {'e'} or nothing in those cases?

I will not go into alternatives like {tIv} "enjoy", but simple answer the question grammatically:

The verb {neH} is the only exception for omitting {'e'}. This means that it is correct to say

{jIvut 'e' vIparHa'} "I like that I cook."

Yes, indeed you may think that this literally means "I do like the fact that I am cooking at this moment", but there is no "special" construction to express the common feeling of "I like surfing in general". It's the English that's strange, not the Klingon.

-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net

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

Thanks for the suggestion! I was a bit hesitant about -ghach because I remember a discussion about it being a bit tricky to use for a beginner, or possibly "bad Klingon". But, I guess then if it's ok to use it it could be: vuttaHghach vIparHa' (by the way, I don't need to use any prefix in a nominalized verb, right?) Thanks again! ~mughwI' 2017-02-12 23:08 GMT+01:00 MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com>:

How about using a noun derived from a verb (by adding -ghach, e.g.) as the object? It involves deciding which other suffix(es) to use so that it doesn't sound odd.

lay'tel SIvten

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

...

Okay, since others have broken the KLBC-barrier already, and our current BG may be at shore leave, I'll answer this:

Am 09.02.2017 um 13:31 schrieb Aurélie Demonchaux:

...

We have some examples of <par> and <parHa'> being used with nouns or pronouns but I can't find any canon source where they apply to verbs.

Do you use {'e'} or nothing in those cases?

I will not go into alternatives like {tIv} "enjoy", but simple answer the question grammatically:

The verb {neH} is the only exception for omitting {'e'}. This means that it is correct to say

{jIvut 'e' vIparHa'} "I like that I cook."

Yes, indeed you may think that this literally means "I do like the fact that I am cooking at this moment", but there is no "special" construction to express the common feeling of "I like surfing in general". It's the English that's strange, not the Klingon.

-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net

_______________________________________________ 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

Thanks for explaining SuStel - I see where the problem is now. Yes I'll stick to sentence-as-objects instead in the future or just rephrase in some other way. 2017-02-13 22:30 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:

The reason people suggest avoiding *-ghach* is to avoid the trap that you just fell into: adding a suffix (usually *-taH*) just because you're supposed to, but not really meaning that suffix.

*vuttaHghach* doesn't mean *cooking,* it means *an ongoing act of cooking,* or *continuous cooking.* That's not what you mean when you want to say *I like to cook.* What you'd want to say is **vutghach vIparHa',* but you can't say that.

Make no mistake: adding *-ghach* to a bare verb is *wrong,* even though Okrand simply called it "marked." Okrand tells us in *HolQeD 3:3* <http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1994-09-holqed-03-3-a.txt&q=marked> that saying **belghach* is like saying **pleasureness.* We all understand it, but you don't say it. Klingons might not take it as badly as we would take **pleasureness,* but it's still not right.

The idea behind *-ghach* is this. Imagine you've got a verb like *bel,* and you've got a magic nominalizer button that, when pressed, turns the verb *bel* into the noun *bel.* Imagine this button works on any verb, but for the moment forget about verbs that don't have known noun counterparts (like *tlhutlh*). Stick a suffix on the verb, and press the button. When we put, say, *-taH* onto *bel* to get *beltaH* *be continuously pleased* and then press the button, nothing happens. The presence of the suffix blocks our nominalization button. So Okrand comes along and gives us a magic suffix, *-ghach,* which when stuck on the end counteracts the presence of the blocking suffix and lets the nominalizer button work again. We add the suffix and push the button and ZAP! we get *beltaHghach** ongoing pleasure.*

The point of *-ghach* is to hide the verb's other suffixes from the nominalization process, so you can turn the suffixed verb into a noun again.

Now, the funny thing is, this process works to counteract suffixes and nominalize verbs that don't actually have noun counterparts! So while I can't use *tlhutlh* to mean *a drink,* I CAN say *tlhutlhtaHghach** ongoing drinking.*

So people find themselves wanting to use *-ghach* on verbs that don't have noun counterparts, but they're not actually interested in counteracting suffixes; they just want a noun form of the verb. But, the rules say, you can't really use *-ghach* without a suffix. So they go and pick the one that least changes the meaning of the verb (usually *-taH*) just so they can get access to *-ghach,* even though they're not using it for its real purpose.

*TL;DR: WHENEVER YOU FEEL AN URGE TO USE -ghach ON A BARE VERB, DON'T USE -ghach AT ALL. *Find some other way to say what you want to say, like sentences-as-objects.

And no, don't put prefixes on verbs with *-ghach.* We don't think you're supposed to do that.

On 2/13/2017 4:05 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion!

I was a bit hesitant about -ghach because I remember a discussion about it being a bit tricky to use for a beginner, or possibly "bad Klingon".

But, I guess then if it's ok to use it it could be:

vuttaHghach vIparHa'

(by the way, I don't need to use any prefix in a nominalized verb, right?)

Thanks again!

~mughwI'

2017-02-12 23:08 GMT+01:00 MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com>:

...

How about using a noun derived from a verb (by adding -ghach, e.g.) as the object? It involves deciding which other suffix(es) to use so that it doesn't sound odd.

lay'tel SIvten

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

...

Okay, since others have broken the KLBC-barrier already, and our current BG may be at shore leave, I'll answer this:

Am 09.02.2017 um 13:31 schrieb Aurélie Demonchaux:

...

We have some examples of <par> and <parHa'> being used with nouns or pronouns but I can't find any canon source where they apply to verbs.

Do you use {'e'} or nothing in those cases?

I will not go into alternatives like {tIv} "enjoy", but simple answer the question grammatically:

The verb {neH} is the only exception for omitting {'e'}. This means that it is correct to say

{jIvut 'e' vIparHa'} "I like that I cook."

Yes, indeed you may think that this literally means "I do like the fact that I am cooking at this moment", but there is no "special" construction to express the common feeling of "I like surfing in general". It's the English that's strange, not the Klingon.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

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

There actually is one canon word that seems to be an unsuffixed verb with *-ghach*: *lo'laHghach*. Unless you consider it a nominalization of *lo'*. I seem to recall Okrand saying a bare verb stem plus *-ghach* is something that might occur in jargon, so **jeDghach *could be scientific jargon for viscosity (or less likely, for density). ~mIp'av

On 2/14/2017 10:32 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:

Oh, and to return to the original topic, if I like to cook, and I do, I might say *jIvutqangqu'*.

chaq jIvut 'e' vIpar 'ach latlh Qu' vIta'nISbogh vIparchu'qu'. latlh Qu'vetlh vIta'be'meH jIvutqangqu'. pIm ta'qangghach bel je. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 2/14/2017 3:14 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

jatlh SuStel:

chaq jIvut 'e' vIpar 'ach latlh Qu' vIta'nISbogh vIparchu'qu'. latlh Qu'vetlh vIta'be'meH jIvutqangqu'.

pIm ta'qangghach bel je.

'utchugh Qu' vIturqangqu'laH je, vaj jIQochbe', 'a jIjatlhchugh jIvutqangqu', jIvut ghaytanHa'qu' 'e' vImuS.

<muS> jatlhpu' 'Iv? <parHa'> jatlhlu'pu'. pIm <-qangqu'> <'e' parHa'> je. (Although we know we can put *-Ha'* on a lot of adverbials, we have no evidence we can put any other verb suffixes on them.) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

jatlh Quvar:

Am 14.02.2017 um 21:19 schrieb SuStel:

...

(Although we know we can put *-Ha'* on a lot of adverbials, we have no evidence we can put any other verb suffixes on them.)

Indeed. Here is some workaround for that: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ComparingAdverbs

Hmm, that workaround doesn't seem to work to intensify *ghaytan*. *vut ghaytanHa' 'e' muSqu'* seems to mean "It's unlikely he really hates to cook," and not "It's really unlikely he hates to cook." ~mIp'av

On 2/15/2017 2:52 AM, Lieven wrote:

Another way may be using the word {jay'}, which also intesntifes the entire phrase, without being stuck to a specific word:

{vut ghaytanHa' 'e' muS jay'}

"This word not only intensifies whatever is being said, it turns the whole phrase into an invective." *jay'* doesn't mean /very/, it means /F'ing!/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

jatlh SuStel: <muS> jatlhpu' 'Iv? <parHa'> jatlhlu'pu'. pIm <-qangqu'> <'e' parHa'> je. (Although we know we can put *-Ha'* on a lot of adverbials, we have no evidence we can put any other verb suffixes on them.) <muS> ngaSbogh mu'tlheghwIj DalaDHa'pu''a'? rap <-qangqu'> <'e' parHa'> je not 'e' vIchup. 'a motlh cha'DIchmo' qaS wa'DIch. It is interesting news to me that we have no evidence for other suffixes than *-Ha'* being used on adverbials. I know I've seen *-qu'* used thus by skilled speakers, though offhand I couldn't tell you who or when. ~mIp'av

I think a good example from linguistics is using -er and -ee as productive suffixes when talking about agents and patients of actions. The suffixes are known from words like "employer" and "employee", but in linguistics there are also the causer and the causee, even the asker and the askee. At least the latter is a nonce word, immediately understood in context, but perhaps only marginally grammatical. The suffix is made more productive, in this way. Or of course things like "nouniness" and "verbiness" when talking about word classes and how well certain words fit into such a class. Klingon {-ghach} in scientific jargon might work similarly. Perhaps Klingon linguists speak of {"neH" chuvghach} ~ the rest-ness of the verb "neH" or similar. - André 2017-02-14 16:41 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:

It's not that *-ghach* occurs on bare stems in scientific jargon; it's that a scientist trying to explain something arcane that doesn't already have a word might throw *-ghach* on a bare verb to make a point. You're coining a word of the moment, not finding it in a textbook.

Basically, the effect of *-ghach* on a bare verb is the same as putting scare-quotes around a word you just made up.

Thanks David! Indeed the lack of tense can be a bit confusing sometimes and it's taking me a bit of time getting used to. I'm still working to figure out also how it works with the verb suffixes. For example, in the 4 possible sentences below, do I get the exact nuances right? jIvutpu’ ’e’ vIparHa’ - I like that I cooked (at some point in the past) - I like that I have cooked (just now) - I like finishing to cook (maybe implying that this is when I can finally eat ;) jIvutta’ ’e’ vIparHa’ - I like that I successfully cooked / that I achieved cooking/ I like cooking successfully [just now, in the past or in general], with more emphasis on the achievement (maybe I was cooking something tricky and I made it) jIvuttaH ’e’ vIparHa' - I like cooking (the process of cooking) jIvutlI’ ’e’ vIparHa' - I like preparing the meal (with more emphasis on the purpose) What do you think? ~mughwI' 2017-02-10 18:22 GMT+01:00 David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com>:

I would just like to add (because it may help you with future problems) that what may actually be throwing you off is the lack of tense in Klingon. One way to translate {jIvut 'e' vIparHa'} is "I like that I am cooking." However, depending on context, you might also interpret it as, "I like that I cooked," "I like that I will cook," "I like that I do cook," and other variations too.

janSIy

------------------------------ *From:* tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Aurélie Demonchaux <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2017 6:31 AM *To:* tlhingan-hol@kli.org *Subject:* [tlhIngan Hol] KLBC - How to say "I like to do/doing something"

Hello!

I've been wondering, what's the correct way to express liking / disliking an activity?

For example, saying:

"I like to cook" or "The Vulcan doesn't like to fight"

We have some examples of <par> and <parHa'> being used with nouns or pronouns but I can't find any canon source where they apply to verbs.

Do you use {'e'} or nothing in those cases?

As in: <jIvut vIparHa'> vs <jIvut ’e’ vIparHa'> <Suv par vulqangan> vs <Suv ’e’ par vulqangan>

My "feeling" would be to use no ’e’ , similar to the construction with <want> (neH), because 'e' is the equivalent of "that", so using it would mean "I like that I cook" / "The Vulcan doesn't like that he fights", implying that the cooking/fighting is actually happening now, instead of stating "I like cooking in general"/"the Vulcan doesn't like fighting in general" (but I'm not necessarily cooking right now and the Vulcan is not fighting right now either).

What do you think?

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

Thanks for your help and explanations Sustel ! I think I get it now :) ~mughwI' PS: "TARDIS-blue", I love your choice of example ;) Whovian jIH ! 2017-02-11 18:16 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:

On 2/11/2017 8:34 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:

Indeed the lack of tense can be a bit confusing sometimes and it's taking me a bit of time getting used to.

I'm still working to figure out also how it works with the verb suffixes.

For example, in the 4 possible sentences below, do I get the exact nuances right?

jIvutpu’ ’e’ vIparHa’ - I like that I cooked (at some point in the past) - I like that I have cooked (just now) - I like finishing to cook (maybe implying that this is when I can finally eat ;)

"At some point in the past" implies past tense, which we know Klingon doesn't have. Instead, the *-pu'* tells us that "I cook" is a completed action. In English we can't separate tense and aspect, so the distinction is difficult for English-speakers to grasp.

*jIvutpu' * *I cooked; I have cooked; I will have cooked *I perform, performed, or will perform an act of cooking, and I now, did, or will complete that act.

The single word in no way tells you whether the action is past, present, or future. It means all of them and none of them at the same time, the same way that *blue* means sky-blue and navy-blue and TARDIS-blue all at the same time.

*wa'Hu' jIvutpu' **yesterday I cooked; yesterday I had cooked*

*DaH jIvutpu' **right now I have cooked*

*wa'leS jIvutpu' **tomorrow I will have cooked*

Contexts like these are required to determine *when* the cooking happened.

If you don't use an aspect suffix, you are explicitly talking about an action that is not completed (or continuous) in the moment your are describing.

*jIvut **I cook; **It's true that I cook things*

This also does not specify *when* an action happened, which requires context:

*wa'Hu' jIvut **I cooked yesterday; it's true that I engaged in cooking yesterday*

*DaH jIvut **I cook now; at other times I may not have cooked, but it's true that I cook now*

*wa'leS jIvut **I will cook tomorrow; tomorrow I'll do some cooking*

You can make a similar comparison with the continuous suffixes.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

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