There's the {maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb} for the meaning of "crescent moon". In this construction however, I can't understand the rationale (*if* there's one to start with..), as a result of which the {maS'e'} precedes the {loQ}. Since a {-bogh} phrase is essentially a baby-sentence, it follows the rules of the grown-up sentences; in tkd we read: "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}". And then it proceeds by the example of {HaqwI' 'e' DaH yISam} "Find the SURGEON now!" As a result of this example, I was under the impression that the "adverbial following the object noun" is something usually taking place in cases of emergency/distress. But what's the emergency/distress in a moon that is crescent? ~ Dana'an
Am 11.06.2021 um 14:23 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
There's the {maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb} [...] then it proceeds by the example of {HaqwI' 'e' DaH yISam} "Find the SURGEON now!"
As a result of this example, I was under the impression that the "adverbial following the object noun" is something usually taking place in cases of emergency/distress.
I think this is where your problem comes from: "I was under the impression that..." Nothing in the sentence of TKD implies that there is any emergency or distress. True, of course, finding a surgeon is an emergency, but not from a grammatical point of view. So if it's okay to say {HaqwI''e' DaH yISam} you can certainly also say {Soj'e' nom vISop}, or as you found out, {maS'e' loQ So' QIb}. TKD does not explicitly says that this is only used in distress. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Adverbial
lieven:
TKD does not explicitly says that this is only used in distress.
maj, I understand. But this raises the question: So when do we use this tkd rule/option? When do we choose to place the noun with the {-'e'} before the adverb? Is it just a matter of personal preference? ~ Dana'an
On 6/11/2021 9:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
So when do we use this tkd rule/option? When do we choose to place the noun with the {-'e'} before the adverb? Is it just a matter of personal preference?
TKD doesn't say why it's done, but I think the reason is obvious: you're fronting the object for emphasis. Fronting is commonly done in many languages for emphasis. Saying the most important word first is a common thing to do. So here you're not only saying *DaH HaqwI''e' yISam*/Find the SURGEON (not someone else) now!; /you're saying*HaqwI''e' DaH yISam,* which essentially means /The surgeon! Find him/her now!/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
One of the confusing elements of the Klingon language is that the noun suffix {-‘e’} is apparently used several different ways. You are interpreting it as presented in TKD as it is typically applied to a main clause. That is, itself confusing, because Okrand has used the term “Topic” for something that is apparently called “Focus” among linguists, and in canon has used it for something Linguists wouldn’t call focus… Meanwhile, the noun suffix {-‘e’} has yet another purpose specific to Relative Clauses. It marks the head noun of a Relative Clause in cases where that might be ambiguous. In this case, without the {-‘e’}, {maS loQ So’be’bogh QIb} could either mean “The shadow which a little bit doesn’t hide the Moon” or it could mean “The Moon, which is a little bit hidden by shadow.” The {-‘e’} disambiguates it, making it mean "The Moon, which the shadow a little bit hides”. Yes, the word order is odd. We’d usually put the adverbial before the object, but Klingon is a little squishy when it comes to what order things that come before the verb appear, and this particular order clarifies that the adverbial applies to the Relative Clause and not to any Main Clause that might contain the Relative Clause. Of course, it means that {maS’e’} could ambiguously apply to this Relative Clause or to a Main Clause that uses this Relative Clause as its Object… We could even suspect that if {-‘e’} is on the object of a Relative Clause, then generally it gets placed as the “Topic” (using Okrand’s term) of the mini-sentence and generalize this word order, though I suspect there’s a canon example out there that puts an adverbial in front of an object of the Relative Clause marked by {-‘e’} as the Head Noun… but I’m no expert in canon. I’ll leave that to others. We don’t reposition the subject of a Relative Clause if we mark it with {-‘e’}, so it would be quite peculiar to do so as a general rule with Head Nouns as Objects of Relative Clauses. [sigh] But in any case, the whole point here is that in English, we have the noun phrase “Crescent Moon”, sometimes referred to as “The Moon in Crescent”, while in Klingon, we have the fossilized Relative Clause {maS’e’ loQ So’be’bogh QIb} to have that same meaning. I don’t know if we’ll get similar clauses for “Waxing Quarter”, “Waning Quarter”, “Waxing Gibbous”, “Waning Gibbous”, “Full Moon”, New Moon”, etc. but since many English speakers are clueless about these terms, they can be categorized as astronomical jargon, and as such Maltz might not be sufficiently familiar with them to include them in the vocabulary. Also, I don’t know whether Klingons would consider a Full Moon to be {maS naQ} or just {maS}. Likely, a New Moon would be {maS’e’ So’chu’bogh QIb}, unless it is simply never referred to because it’s basically a hole in the star field of a night sky, so why talk about something that doesn’t matter? After all, Maltz was a career man on a space ship. He might not spend enough time on a planet with a moon to be all that familiar with moon phases. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 11, 2021, at 8:23 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's the {maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb} for the meaning of "crescent moon". In this construction however, I can't understand the rationale (*if* there's one to start with..), as a result of which the {maS'e'} precedes the {loQ}.
Since a {-bogh} phrase is essentially a baby-sentence, it follows the rules of the grown-up sentences; in tkd we read: "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}". And then it proceeds by the example of {HaqwI' 'e' DaH yISam} "Find the SURGEON now!"
As a result of this example, I was under the impression that the "adverbial following the object noun" is something usually taking place in cases of emergency/distress. But what's the emergency/distress in a moon that is crescent?
~ Dana'an _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/11/2021 9:38 AM, Will Martin wrote:
But in any case, the whole point here is that in English, we have the noun phrase “Crescent Moon”, sometimes referred to as “The Moon in Crescent”, while in Klingon, we have the fossilized Relative Clause {maS’e’ loQ So’be’bogh QIb} to have that same meaning.
I'm sorry, how did you determine that *maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb* is a fossilized phrase? I mean, it might be, but what evidence supports that determination? Context: *nuH'e' qengbogh mangghomvam luDel 'e' ra' molor lujang maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb lurur* /Molor asks them What weapons this army carries, They reply, shaped as the crescent moon. / (Honestly, I find the other things happening in this stanza to be more interesting. *jang* is back to being a verb of saying. *ra'* is clearly not one, and is translated (from) /ask./ The *lu-* in *luDel* is apparently an error, unless the text is considering *nuH* as a singular class of weapons rather than plural weapons, which would make *nuH* more complicated than we knew or would introduce a new "class" interpretation of nouns.) // -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
It’s been my intentional habit for some time now that I’m less interested in saying anything authoritatively right than I am in prompting others who know better than myself to clarify details that have, thus far in the discussion, been left unexplored. Thank you for providing that clarification. This group is rich with well-informed minds and tools to polish our understanding of the language beyond the degree of detail any single person’s skill, least of all, mine. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 11, 2021, at 9:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/11/2021 9:38 AM, Will Martin wrote:
But in any case, the whole point here is that in English, we have the noun phrase “Crescent Moon”, sometimes referred to as “The Moon in Crescent”, while in Klingon, we have the fossilized Relative Clause {maS’e’ loQ So’be’bogh QIb} to have that same meaning. I'm sorry, how did you determine that maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb is a fossilized phrase? I mean, it might be, but what evidence supports that determination?
Context:
nuH'e' qengbogh mangghomvam luDel 'e' ra' molor lujang maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb lurur
Molor asks them What weapons this army carries, They reply, shaped as the crescent moon.
(Honestly, I find the other things happening in this stanza to be more interesting. jang is back to being a verb of saying. ra' is clearly not one, and is translated (from) ask. The lu- in luDel is apparently an error, unless the text is considering nuH as a singular class of weapons rather than plural weapons, which would make nuH more complicated than we knew or would introduce a new "class" interpretation of nouns.)
-- 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 6/11/2021 10:10 AM, Will Martin wrote:
It’s been my intentional habit for some time now that I’m less interested in saying anything authoritatively right than I am in prompting others who know better than myself to clarify details that have, thus far in the discussion, been left unexplored.
Thank you for providing that clarification.
What clarification did I provide? I asked what your evidence was for saying that *maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb* is a fossilized phrase. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I have no evidence that it is a fossilized phrase. It was a good guess in that it would explain the odd phrasing, and if it had been correct, you or others would have confirmed it. So far, it remains unconfirmed, so likely, it is not a fossilized expression, and my erroneous assumption joins the huge mass of erroneous assumptions shot down by this list over the decades. The main difference between my error and many of the others is that I have no ego attached, and so I’m not coming back with some new argument to suggest that I was right all along. I was probably NOT right all along, and I have no problem confessing that. … unless someone else comes up with evidence that it is a fossilized expression, or if they come up with a generalized trend for moving the marked object in front of the adverbial — something you have suggested and seems to be the winning explanation thus far. Assuming it remains unchallenged, it becomes the new consensus, until canon or future arguments win out. After all, a Darwinian beak evolved for a specific food doesn’t go unchanged forever if the available food changes. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 11, 2021, at 10:13 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/11/2021 10:10 AM, Will Martin wrote:
It’s been my intentional habit for some time now that I’m less interested in saying anything authoritatively right than I am in prompting others who know better than myself to clarify details that have, thus far in the discussion, been left unexplored.
Thank you for providing that clarification. What clarification did I provide? I asked what your evidence was for saying that maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb is a fossilized phrase.
-- 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
participants (4)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin