expressing "again we wouldn't be able"
Read: maSopqa' we eat again maSopqa'laH we're able to eat again maSopqa'laHbe' we aren't able to eat again maSopqa'be'laH we are able not to eat again So far so good.. Can someone tell me, how in the name of qeylIS our lord and master, I can say "again we aren't able to eat" ??? Can I say it in a single word, with the right combination of suffixes ? Or do I have to express it with multiple sentences, through context, and all that crap ? ~ bara'qa'
On 9/26/2019 9:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
maSopqa' we eat again
maSopqa'laH we're able to eat again
maSopqa'laHbe' we aren't able to eat again
maSopqa'be'laH we are able not to eat again
Or /We are able to not resume eating./ Maybe someone is forcing people to resume eating, but we can avoid being so forced.
So far so good..
Can someone tell me, how in the name of qeylIS our lord and master, I can say "again we aren't able to eat" ???
*maSopqa'laHbe'* The meanings of Klingon suffixes don't necessarily have to be applied in a particular order. You're just forced to write them in a certain order no matter where their meanings lie. ** *maSopqa'laHbe' **ma-:* we do something *Sop:* the action is eating *-qa':* something resumes or happens again *-laH:* the subject is able to do something *-be':* negates either the *-laH* or all of *Sopqa'laH.* Let's assume the *-be'* applies only to the *-laH.* /Not able, resume, eat./ This might mean we resume being not able to eat, or it might mean we are not able to resume eating. As always, Captain Context is there to help. Or we can assume the *-be'* applies to the whole thing. *maSopqa'laH* means we are able to resume eating or we resume being able to eat. With the *-be',* it means we are not able to resume eating or we do not resume being able to eat. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Let's assume the -be' applies only to the -laH. Not able, resume, eat. This might mean we resume being not able to eat maSopqa'laH means we are able to resume eating or we resume being able to eat.
So, if I understand correctly, one of the possible interpretations of the word {maSopqa'laHbe'} is with the suffix {-qa'} acting solely on the suffix {-laH}. Right ? If I understand your explanation correctly, this is a very interesting fact. Lets consider another example, to see if I understand this correctly.. The {jIqawchoHchu'} can mean either "I begin to remember perfectly", or "I perfectly begin to remember". So, adding a {-be'} to the mix.. The {jIqawchoHchu'be'} can mean either "I begin to not perfectly remember", or "I don't perfectly begin to remember". So, to summarize, if we have a verb with two "normal" suffixes and a rover, the possibilities are: 1. The two "normal" suffixes and the rover apply on the verb, each one independently from the other. 2. Any one of the "normal" suffixes and the rover, can apply on each other, before applying on the verb. Would you agree with the above ? - bara'qa'
On 9/26/2019 10:24 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
Let's assume the -be' applies only to the -laH. Not able, resume, eat. This might mean we resume being not able to eat maSopqa'laH means we are able to resume eating or we resume being able to eat. So, if I understand correctly, one of the possible interpretations of the word {maSopqa'laHbe'} is with the suffix {-qa'} acting solely on the suffix {-laH}. Right ?
You're trying to draw me into saying something stronger than I intend it. *-qa'* doesn't act solely on *-laH.* The word as a whole has the subject resuming something and the subject being able (or not) to do something. Canon shows us that it's not always as simple as applying each non-rover suffix only to the root verb, and it's not always possible to see each suffix as applying to the entirety of what came before it. At some point you have to see that Klingon doesn't get as precise as that. It's not like a computer program following an exact sequence of steps to evaluate an expression to a single return value. /paq'batlh/ has a line, *chaq batlh bIvangqa'laH*/You might have a chance to make amends./ Literally, it means /You can take action honorably again./ Or does it mean /You again can take action honorably?/ Or does it mean /You can honorably take action again?/ More importantly, does it even matter? Is not the idea expressed anyway? It certainly makes all kinds of sense in the /paq'batlh, /where Kahless's brother Morath realizes he was wrong to fight Kahless and Kahless says this to him in forgiveness. Here's another: *tlhInganpu' tlhabqa'moHmeH*/[to make the Klingon people] self-sufficient once more,/ literally /in order to cause Klingons to be free again./ Or is it /in order to again cause Klingons to be free?/ (The idea behind this line is that the Klingon people themselves will make the Klingon people free once more, so what they did once the could do again.) Again: does it matter? You end up in the same place, and the context makes the meaning unquestionable. I really think you need to back off of these super-precise analyses. You're dropping below the resolution of the language. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel