Intended meaning: "why do we cause for us trouble because of him ?" Which of the following two would you prefer ? {qatlh ghaHmo' maHvaD maSeng ?} {qatlh maHvaD ghaHmo' maSeng ?} ~ mayqel qunen'oS
Based on discussion O’ve seen on this list, I’d also like to throw in: ghaHmo’ qatlh maHvaD maSeng Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 20, 2020, at 08:45, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Intended meaning:
"why do we cause for us trouble because of him ?"
Which of the following two would you prefer ?
{qatlh ghaHmo' maHvaD maSeng ?} {qatlh maHvaD ghaHmo' maSeng ?}
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/20/2020 11:08 AM, jevreh@qeylis.net wrote:
ghaHmo’ qatlh maHvaD maSeng
On Jan 20, 2020, at 08:45, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
"why do we cause for us trouble because of him ?"
Which of the following two would you prefer ?
{qatlh ghaHmo' maHvaD maSeng ?} {qatlh maHvaD ghaHmo' maSeng ?}
My impression has always been that the relative positions of adverbials, question words, and syntactic nouns isn't strictly fixed. Syntactic noun phrases come "before the object noun," locative phrases (a kind of syntactic noun phrase) come "at the beginning of the sentence," and adverbials and the adverbially acting question words come "at the beginning of the sentence." The Addendum tells us that an adverbial "precedes the object-verb-noun construction," and that "an element of another type" can "precede the adverb," the most common element being a time element. Syntactic noun phrases are more common than time elements, so does this not apply to syntactic noun phrases? Given all that, plus a somewhat scanty list of examples, makes any of these possible. We are given no information whatsoever as to whether Klingon has any preference of order for these elements. I personally tend to put adverbials before syntactic noun phrases, but I cite no evidence for this practice. I would note that your English sentence, /Why do we cause for us trouble because of him,/ is not well-formed. I don't see any way to combine the prepositions /for us/ and /because of him/ and the question word /why./ This would have to be recast as something like /Why do we cause trouble because of what he did/ or /Why does his presence make us cause trouble?/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghunchu'wI':
However, I don’t quite understand what “cause for us trouble” means. Can you describe a situation where you would use > that phrase? SuStel: I would note that your English sentence, Why do we cause for us trouble because of him, is not well-formed.
Perhaps, the way I'd say the intended meaning in greek, bled through to english, and then to klingon.. The situation I had in mind, was a boss having a problematic employee, insisting nevertheless on keeping him, because he's a relative or something. So, a fed up colleague, says to the boss "why do we cause for us trouble because of him ?" Meaning "why do we need to be constantly putting up with him ?" Of course, one could ask just that.. But I was just wondering with regards to the order in which two nouns, each with a type-5 suffix, would/could/should be placed. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On Jan 20, 2020, at 8:44 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
"why do we cause for us trouble because of him ?"
Are you trying to ask why we do it, are you trying to ask why he is the cause, or are you trying to ask why we do it despite his being the cause? There are ways to make the question less ambiguous. However, I don’t quite understand what “cause for us trouble” means. Can you describe a situation where you would use that phrase? -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
jevreh＠qeylis.net -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel