For those who missed them, here are the known examples: (qepHom 2017): {vabDot} means something like “moreover, furthermore, even”. “Even” is a good English translation of {vabDot} in a number of contexts. It's not the only definition of {vabDot}, but I think it's okay as part of the definition. But there's a little more to it than that. It's used to say that something is unexpected or surprising or counterintuitive, not just additional. For something that's just additional, you'd probably use {je} “also”. Grammatically, {vabDot} is considered an adverbial. Qo'noS romuluS je boSuqlaH. vabDot tera' Qejbogh DIvI' ram boSuqlaH. Kronos, Romulus and even the puny Federation's precious Earth, are all up for grabs. MKE vabDot Sovbe' targhwIj (qep'a' 2018 Secrecy Proverb) (janSIy, 8/06/2018]): The usual translation is “Even my targ won't know!” It's more literally “in addition, my targ will not know”, with an assumed reference to others not knowing in the first place. AFAIK our only examples of {tlhosS} come from DISCOVERY: naDev jIHpu'DI' tlhoS taghtaHvIS noH ngugh pe'vIl jIvuvHa'. The last time I was here, on the eve of the war, I hurled disrespect. (DSC "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not…") jav wen qaS may'vetlh 'ej tlhoS maQapqa'laH. Six months since that fight we are almost operational again. (DSC "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not…") 'a cha'puj choHwI' wIHutlh, tlhoS loj Sojmaj je. But we still lack a dilithium processor, we are almost out of food, too. (DSC/Qov "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not…") tlhoS nIb So'wI' tlhamchem, wojvam je. […tiny imperfections?] that correlate to the cloak's gravitational field. (DSC/LLsub "Into the Forest I Go") (qep'a' 2018): “barely” [with a negative verb] -- Voragh, Ca'Non Master of the Klingons _______________________________________________________________ From: SuStel Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 7:59 AM On 8/26/2021 8:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: the important thing here is that seemingly/apparently, whatever goes for the {vabDot}, goes for the {tlhoS} too. You can translate vabDot as it is even true that and tlhoS as it is almost true that. Both deal with the truth of the action, not the quality of the action (vabDot jISop It is even true that I eat; tlhoS jISop It is almost true that I eat; but not QIt jISop ≠ It is slow that I eat or SIbI' jISop ≠ It is immediate that I eat. That's why vabDot and tlhoS work similarly.

On 8/26/2021 2:19 PM, Will Martin wrote:

Klingon doesn’t have adverbs. It has “adverbials”. These modify verbs. Their placement in the sentence begins the verb clause (main or dependent) because it is grammatically linked to the verb.

Given this, I could only interpret {vabDot vIghro’ tIQ DagheplaH,} to mean “You’ll even be able to hold the ancient cat.” Maybe Okrand has used it otherwise in canon or maybe he’s explained how an adverbial could apply to a noun, and I’ll once again wince my way through yet another grammatical inconsistency, but from my perspective, rules is rules, and adverbials modify verbs.

Wellllllll, if we're going by "the rules," adverbials "describe the manner of the activity." That's not quite the same thing as "adverbials modify verbs." Qa'yIn isn't saying that *vabDot* and *tlhoS* can modify nouns. He's saying that they can be translated in a way that leads to an English adverb modifying a noun. And he is correct. *vabDot vIghro' DaleghlaH SoH* means /It is even true that you can see a cat./ That might mean: It is even true that YOU can see a cat. It is even true that you can SEE a cat. It is even true that you can see a CAT. (I am emphasizing individual words to illustrate the point, not as a suggestion that the adverbial emphasizes words.) All Qa'yIn is doing is noticing that the /even/ part of the English translation might be applied /in the English translation/ to any of those words. In Klingon, you cannot move the *vabDot *around, so the interpretation must be entirely left to context.

This is why we call them adverbials and not “adverbs”.

Wellllllll, no, that's not really the difference between adverbs and adverbials. In English, an adverb is a word that modifies a verb, adjective, adverb, determiner, clause, preposition, or sentence. It is a part of speech, like nouns and adjectives. An adverbial is a word or phrase that modifies a sentence or verb. It is a sentence part, like subjects and predicates. Adverbs are usually used as adverbials. So the word /adverbial/ doesn't really tell us a lot about the limitations of what it can do. Given that they almost always come before the OVS part of the sentence, I think they probably usually apply to the whole sentence, to be interpreted as context decrees. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

I think you guys have gone overboard with this thin-ice argument that Klingon adverbials CAN BE TRANSLATED to apply to things other than either the verb (most commonly), or in special cases where the context clarifies WTF you are talking about, nouns. A simpler truth is that your precious, exceptional English translations would only make sense if the English translation had the same context that the Klingon expression did, and if it HAD that context, you would, like the Klingon expression, not need the emphasis you are putting on it. I maintain that adverbials apply to verbs or to whole sentences, and if you want to weight the meaning toward specific non-verb words in the sentence, you need very special context, and if you have that context, you don’t need to add weight to make the English translation mean something other than what the Klingon sentence actually means, which is either a verb or whole-sentence application of the adverbial. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Aug 27, 2021, at 7:43 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

SuStel:

...

That's why vabDot and tlhoS work similarly.

I think that adverbs having to do with the frequency of an action (i.e. pIj, pIjHa', roD, rut) work similarly:

pIj qama' DaqIp SoH you often *hit* prisoners often *you* hit prisoners you hit often *prisoners*

And perhaps other adverbs too can be understood multiple ways:

jaS be'vaD bIjatlh SoH you differently *speak* for women differently *you* speak for women you speak for *women* differently

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

On 8/27/2021 9:29 AM, Will Martin wrote:

I think you guys have gone overboard with this thin-ice argument that Klingon adverbials CAN BE TRANSLATED to apply to things other than either the verb (most commonly), or in special cases where the context clarifies WTF you are talking about, nouns.

A simpler truth is that your precious, exceptional English translations would only make sense if the English translation had the same context that the Klingon expression did, and if it HAD that context, you would, like the Klingon expression, not need the emphasis you are putting on it.

Why are you so angry?

I maintain that adverbials apply to verbs or to whole sentences, and if you want to weight the meaning toward specific non-verb words in the sentence, you need very special context, and if you have that context, you don’t need to add weight to make the English translation mean something other than what the Klingon sentence actually means, which is either a verb or whole-sentence application of the adverbial.

Did you miss the bit where I said I was using emphasis for illustrative purposes only, and that it did NOT represent actual emphasis in the sentences? The only point to it was to show  that the interpretation of /even/ and /almost/ or *vabDot* and *tlhoS* could change depending on which part of the sentence was being treated as the independent variable. Let's look at a canonical example. *Qo'noS romuluS je boSuqlaH. vabDot tera' Qejjbogh DIvI' ram boSuqlaH.*/Kronos, Romulus, and even the puny Federation's precious Earth are all up for grabs./ (Klingon Monopoly) Look at the *vabDot* here. The focus here is to say /Kronos, Romulus, and even Earth!/ If the *vabDot* merely modified the verb, the focus would be /VerbX and even acquire!/ That's clearly not what's going on here. The *vabDot* acts on the entire sentence to make the noun *tera'* stand out. *vabDot* is just like *je,* except for its placement and the extra connotation of unexpectedness. We are told this explicitly. Let's take the TKD sentence *qaleghpu' je*/I also saw you, I saw you too./ "As in English, the meaning of such sentences is ambiguous: /I and others saw you/ or /I saw you and others./ The exact meaning is determined by context. Let's replace *je* with *vabDot:* *vabDot qaleghpu'*/Even I saw you; I saw even you./ Since we know that *vabDot* is just *je* with the extra connotation of unexpectedness, we should be able to see the same ambiguity, and we do. Are we focused on the surprise of me /(Even I saw you)/ or you /(I saw even you)/? There's an additional possibility which TKD doesn't address: *qaleghpu' je*/I also saw you (in addition to doing other things to or with you);/ *vabDot qaleghpu'*/I even saw you (in addition to doing other things to or with you)./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 8/27/2021 4:08 PM, Will Martin wrote:

Looking at your evidence, which I appreciate because I’m personally very bad at gathering evidence, I expected to see Okrand doing exactly what you want him to be doing, showing that an adverbial can be meaningfully translated as applying its meaning to a noun instead of a verb or a whole sentence.

Meanwhile, when I see this canon example, quite honestly, I don’t see him doing what you say he’s doing. I see him doing what I love to do when translating Klingon: He’s recasting an expression in order to say something that the grammar of the Klingon language doesn’t support.

Of course he's doing that. His doing that is exactly what sets up the context for *vabDot* that demonstrates my point. If he weren't doing that, I wouldn't have an example to show you. I chose that example /because/ he did that.

The English translation that you present as evidence that adverbials can point to something other than a verb is a result of very masterful recasting

Er, uh, I couldn't go so far as to call it /masterful./ It's a good translation. Anyone who translates without doing that sort of thing probably doesn't produce a good translation.

of what we would say in a single sentence in English into a pair of sentences in Klingon because Klingon doesn’t support applying an adverbial to a noun the way that adverbs can be applied to nouns in English.

...

*Qo'noS romuluS je boSuqlaH. vabDot tera' Qejjbogh DIvI' ram boSuqlaH.*/ Kronos, Romulus, and even the puny Federation's precious Earth are all up for grabs./

The literal translation is more like “You can acquire Kronos and Romulus. You can even acquire Earth, which the unimportant Federation cherishes."

By repeating the first sentence's verb in the second sentence with a new subject and the adverbial, the grammatical link between the adverbial and the verb can be implied to apply to the subject, since that’s the thing that’s different between the two sentences.  When you say you can acquire A and B, and then you say you can even acquire C, what is different between “acquiring” and “even acquiring”? Well, C is different from A and B, obviously.

You're missing the point and looking at it exactly backwards. Qa'yIn was merely struck by the realization that when translating Klingon, in which the adverbials /must/ come before the sentence, you could end up with an adverbial in lots of different places in the English sentence, including apparently modifying nouns, even though adverbs are usually said to modify most things /except/ nouns. No one is saying anything about Klingon adverbials modifying nouns; we're just discussing how Klingon adverbials are fixed in position, while their translated English adverbials can move around the sentence, and the Klingon adverbials are not locked into a translation that only puts the English adverbial in front of the verb or adjective.

You had suggested that given context, the adverbial could apply to any non-chuvmey word in the sentence. It could apply to the subject or object. Like this is a normal thing that could be done in any Klingon sentence.

No, I suggested that the meaning expressed by the Klingon adverbial can be translated into an English adverbial that modifies the nouns of the sentence instead of the verb. Dare I say that Klingon is not a code for English, so word-for-word translations are not required? Klingon adverbials modifying Klingon sentences need not be translated as English adverbs modifying English verbs.

Meanwhile, in the lone sentence {vabDot tera’ Qejbogh DIvI’ ram boSuqlaH}, {vabDot} applies to {boSuqlaH}. It does not apply to {tera’}.

It applies to the entire sentence. If it applied only to *Suq,* then it would mean /even acquire/ (in addition to doing other things). That's not what the *vabDot* is doing in the sentence. It is expressing /even Earth/ (in addition to those other planets).

We get the meaning of it applying to {tera’} outside of Klingon grammar by this recasting device of repetition of the verb.

Yes! Out of context, the Klingon *vabDot tera' boSuqlaH* can mean /You can acquire even Earth (in addition to other planets), Even you (not just those other guys) can acquire Earth,/ or /You can even acquire Earth (in addition to all those other things you can do with Earth)./ In English, you can move the /even/ around to be more precise than Klingon can be, though even English (heh) is not unambiguous. /Even you can acquire Earth/ can only be the "not just those other guys" variety, but /You can even acquire Earth/ can be the "in addition to other planets" variety or the "in addition to all those other things you can do with Earth" variety. And you can see clearly the difference in the English if you stress certain words: /You can even acquire EARTH (in addition to other planets). You can even ACQUIRE Earth (in addition to all the other things you can do with Earth)./ Again, just so we're clear, I didn't stress those words because I'm suggesting that using an adverbial in Klingon involves any kind of stressed or emphasized element. I'm only stressing them to show where the focus of the unexpectedness lies.

Essentially we are making three statements:

You can acquire Kronos. You can acquire Romulus. You can even acquire Earth.

Two of these acquisitions are identical. One is different, qualified by {vabDot}. The other two don’t get {vabDot}.

Yes. Because acquiring the EARTH (notice the stress) is unexpected, while acquiring Kronos or Romulus are not. The focus is on the difference in the nouns, not the verb.

So, outside of Klingon grammar, we mark Earth as different from Kronos and Romulus because the first two just get acquired, while the third one EVEN gets acquired.

Yes, "outside of Klingon grammar." INSIDE Klingon grammar, we can't distinguish whether we're noting Earth as different, acquiring as different, or you as different. We can only tell through context. This is the *qaleghpu' je* ambiguity that TKD discusses.

You’d have a stronger argument if the example somehow used context to make the lone sentence mean “You can acquire even Earth,” but this example doesn’t really go that far. It says, “You can even acquire Earth.”

No it doesn't. YOU said that. The example says "Even the puny Federation's precious Earth."

Your last paragraph is much more convincing.

The use of {je} as an adverbial is very exceptional in Klingon.

*je* is not classified as an adverbial by Federation linguists. They classify it as a conjunction. Klingons only call it a *chuv.* Just so we're clear on the terminology and not taking as evidence things that aren't evidence.

Step 1: {je} and {‘ej} are both conjunctions, and like {qoj} and {joq}, one is the other spelled backwards, and one applies to nouns, following the nouns, but the other applies to verbs, and precedes the second verb.

Step 2: Take the noun version, and apply it to verbs, but place it like you would for a noun, after the word it modifies.

This is not how you analyze grammar. This is more like numerology.

Given how exceptional it is, it also gets exceptionally ambiguous translation. Is it really modifying the verb, or could it modify the subject or object as well?

In the past, we’ve glossed past this and assumed that the English ambiguity of “too” applies fully to the Klingon adverbial {je}.

NO, NO, NO! We're TOLD how the ambiguity works. *qaleghpu' je* can mean /I and others saw you/ (that is, the context is something like: *Duleghpu' chaH; qaleghpu' je*), or it can mean /I saw you and others/ (that is, the context is something like: *chaH vIleghpu'; qaleghpu' je*).

So, it’s stretching things a bit thinner to take this uncertainty surrounding {je} and assume it also applies to {vabDot} and {tlhoS}, and then we should go hunting through our list of adverbials and see how many others we can assume might apply to subjects and objects instead of just verbs.

No no no again. Nobody is assuming that Klingon *je* works exactly like English /too./ Where did you get that? We are working with Klingon *je* EXACTLY as its described in TKD.

I’m not declaring myself The Voice of Authority here, declaring that you are all wrong and I’m all right. This is simply a difference of opinion among people who are unusually good with the language. You’ve made your case that you think {vabDot} and possibly other adverbials can generally be used to apply to verbs or subjects or objects, given sufficient context,

Wrong. You do not understand what I have said, 'cause that ain't it. Adverbials like *vabDot* don't apply to subject and objects. They apply to sentences. They are adverbials. Adverbials go at the front and tell how the activity of the sentence proceeds. It's not specifically tied to the verb or any other single piece of the sentence; it's tied to the whole sentence. That's why it goes in the front. There are times when you can figure out which word the adverbial directly applies to. In sentences like *nom yIghoS* it's obviously referring to the verb. But in some sentences, it's not, as canonical sentences show. So the interpretation of adverbials is not so cut and dried as saying "adverbials modify the verb." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 8/27/2021 7:11 PM, Will Martin wrote:

I think the Klingon means something simpler than what the “equivalent” English means.

I think the Klingon means something /broader/ than what the "equivalent" English means.

So, let’s hone in on the difference I’m trying to point to.

“What weapon do you want?”

{nuH yIwIv!}

The latter never MEANS the former, but the former is something that Klingon lacks the grammar and vocabulary to say, so yes, you can translate the latter to the former, but that is never what it means.

Ahem. "Klingon is not a code for English." *nuH yIwIv* doesn't MEAN /Choose a weapon! /more than it MEANS /What weapon do you want?/ Both are translations. Both are /accurate/ translations. One translation may be more suitable in certain contexts than the other. The art of translation is the art of transmitting meaning accurately /despite/ changes in grammar, vocabulary, semantics, context, and tradition. Translation is NOT about finding words that correspond to the same words in the other language and fitting them together in the most similar way as the source language.

That’s what I mean by recasting.

I know what recasting means.

What I’m objecting to is the suggestion that analyzing the grammar of {qalegh je.} you can say that the {je} is pointing to the subject or to the object. It isn’t.

I'm not saying that *je* is pointing to the subject or the object. I'm saying that *je* is used in a way that compares a subject to other subjects or an object to other objects. When you say *qaleghpu' je,* it follows on from some previous context. The context might be /I saw others,/ in which case the *je* is pointing out that /you/ are an addition to what I saw. The context might be others saw you, in which case the *je* is pointing out that /I/ am an additional person who saw you. The *je* isn't "pointing to" the subject or object in the way you're implying. It signals the listener that /some/ part of the context is getting an addition by including this sentence. You can't tell, without the context, what part of the sentence is the addition.

You can set up the understanding in a communication that is longer than a sentence so that one understands that I, in addition to others, see you, but the {je} applies to the entire sentence through the verb, and if you work harder through a unit of communication larger than a sentence, you can convey that meaning.

Yes! The mere use of *je* implies and requires that the sentence is in addition to /something./ That something is the context.

I can describe a lightsaber in Klingon, but that doesn’t make “Lightsaber” part of the Klingon vocabulary (or Universe, for that matter). I have to work with a larger unit of communication than a word to convey lightsaber in Klingon. This is like that.

This is nothing like that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name