tkd/maltz/okrand:

{ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'} "The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to confer."

I don't know whether this Ca'Non example can clarify the original question of this thread. Lets take things from the beginning.. {qeqmeH taj} = knife in order to train/training knife; the purpose of this knife is to train with it. {QongmeH Duj} = ship in order to sleep; unless you have your teddy bear, pillow, and pajamas don't board this ship. Now, back to the Ca'Non example.. The way I understand the {ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'} is that it goes as: (ja'chuqmeH) rojHom neH jaghla' = in order that some unstated parties discuss with each other, the enemy commander wishes a truce. Perhaps, this enemy commander is one of the parties involved, but what matters is, that there could be an unstated subject of the {ja'chuqmeH}. So, this sentence could actually be: ja'chuqmeH (unstated parties), rojHom neH jaghla'. The reason I understand this sentence this way, is that it sounds weird to have {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} as in "confering truce". And even if it doesn't, the problem still remains, that this Ca'Non example can be interpreted either way. So, (unfortunately), the original question of this thread still stands: Could we say the following? {nga'chuqmeH mIw bopbe' ruSchaj} their relation isn't about sex ~ mayqel qunen'oS keep calm and execute order 66

Am 06.05.2020 um 15:17 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:

The way I understand the {ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'} is that it goes as:

The way I understand "banana" is that it refers to a kind of bycicle.

(ja'chuqmeH) rojHom neH jaghla' = in order that some unstated parties discuss with each other,

I agree that there are two ways to read the sentence: 1. [ja'chuqmeH rojHom] neH jaghla'. 2. [ja'chuqmeH], rojHom neH jaghla'. But since TKD clearly explained that at least in this situation, version 1 is intended, I am sure that it answers your question.

The reason I understand this sentence this way, is that it sounds weird to have {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} as in "confering truce".

Maybe it sounds weird to you, but I see no problem in "truce in order to talk to each other".

Could we say the following?

{nga'chuqmeH mIw bopbe' ruSchaj} their relation isn't about sex

I'm not sure about the English translation, but I see nothing against {nga'chuqmeH mIw}. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/TKD

The thing to add to this that hasn’t been mentioned yet is that {-meH} clauses, especially when they modify nouns, are the closest thing Klingon has to an infinitive form of the verb. It’s the one time that a null prefix doesn’t necessarily imply a subject. It might, but it doesn’t have to. {ghojmeH taj} doesn’t necessarily translate to “In order that he/she/it/they learn(s)”. It can very acceptably be translated as “a learning knife” or “an in-order-to-learn knife” or “a knife which is for the purpose of learning". You don’t have to add {-lu’} to imply an indefinite subject. It is not universally necessary to have a subject in this instance because {ghojmeH} doesn’t tell you what the knife does or necessarily tell you what a person does with the knife in the past, present, or future. It merely describes what kind of knife it is. You can kill someone with a {ghojmeH taj}. You can carve a statue with a {ghojmeH taj}. You can remove a splinter with a {ghojmeH taj}. You can pick a lock with a {ghojmeH taj}. You can throw it. You can stow it. You can bake it in a pie. The specific history of this knife or its future is not what {ghojmeH} tells you about. Nothing specific ever happens to this knife because of {ghojmeH}. It merely identifies the type of knife. Also, for {ja’chuqmeH rojHom}, the {-chuq} is not so much to functioning to imply a plural subject for {ja’} as it is to make {ja’} have the meaning “discuss, confer” instead of “tell”. A purpose clause applied to a noun is unique in Klingon grammar as the one time when you don’t particularly imply a subject on the verb. Note that if one never learns from using a {ghojmeH taj} and no discussion happens at a {ja’chuqmeH rojHom} before a riot occurs and the discussion group starts murdering each other using {ghojmeH tajmey}, the knife is still a {ghojmeH taj} and the truce is still a {ja’chuqmeH rojHom}. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On May 6, 2020, at 10:10 AM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:

On May 6, 2020, at 9:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The reason I understand this sentence this way, is that it sounds weird to have {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} as in "confering truce".

It’s not any more weird than {ghojmeH taj} or {qaSuchmeH 'eb}. If your problem is with the translation, think of it as “parley”.

-- ghunchu'wI'

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

tkd:

The phrase ja’chuqmeH rojHom a truce (in order) to confer is the object of the verb neH he/she wants it The object is a noun rojHom truce preceded by the purpose clause ja’chuqmeH for the purpose of conferring or in order to confer.

While I was replying to lieven's reply to my original post, I hadn't realized that the above were indeed quoted from tkd.. So, obviously, I was mistaken.. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu' jagh DajeymeH nIteb yISuvrup reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS (and similar klingon crap goes in here..) jIH:

The reason I understand this sentence this way, is that it sounds weird to have {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} as in "confering truce". ghunchu'wI': If your problem is with the translation, think of it as “parley”

Interesting.. I hadn't thought of it this way. You're right; "parley" does the trick. Thanks. ~ mayqel qunen'oS Dujonpa' vIghro' tIQ bIHeghjaj!