to be sentences with {-bogh} and the {-'e'}
Read: {Qun 'oHbe'bogh vIghro''e' wIghajnISbe'} we don't need to have a cat which isn't a god What is the role of the {-'e'} on the {vIghro'} ? To give the "as for the.." meaning ? To mark the topic of the sentence ? To give emphasis to the {vIghro'} word ? Or all of the above ? ~ bara'qa'
Am 24.09.2019 um 14:23 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:> {Qun 'oHbe'bogh vIghro''e' wIghajnISbe'}
we don't need to have a cat which isn't a god
What is the role of the {-'e'} on the {vIghro'} ?
It marks the topic, making clear that we do not need a CAT which is not a god, instead of saying we don't need the GOD that the cat is not. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On 9/24/2019 8:30 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 24.09.2019 um 14:23 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:> {Qun 'oHbe'bogh vIghro''e' wIghajnISbe'}
we don't need to have a cat which isn't a god
What is the role of the {-'e'} on the {vIghro'} ?
It marks the topic, making clear that we do not need a CAT which is not a god, instead of saying we don't need the GOD that the cat is not.
It marks the head noun of the relative clause, which can be thought of as the topic of the relative clause. It does not mark the topic of the sentence as a whole. When *-'e'* is used for one purpose, it doesn't seem to mean the others simultaneously. So when *-'e'* marks the head noun of a relative clause, it probably doesn't also indicate emphasis or focus. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
It marks the “head noun” of the relative clause. This marking is always optional, but it helps disambiguate relative clauses that have both a subject and an object. The head noun is the noun in the relative clause that also functions grammatically (usually as subject or object) in the main clause. In other words, your example uses {vIghro’} in two clauses: Qun ‘oHbe’bogh vIghro’ and vIghro’ wIghajnISbe’. It’s the same {vIghro’}. If the relative clause has an explicit subject noun and no object noun, you don’t need to mark anything. If the relative clause has an explicit object noun and no subject noun, you don’t need to mark anything. If context makes it obvious whether the explicit subject noun or object noun in the relative clause is also acting as a noun in the main clause, you don’t need to mark anything. But if you want to be clear which noun in a relative clause that has both a subject noun and an object noun is also acting in a grammatical role in the outer main clause, mark it with {-‘e’}. There has been interest in using nouns that have some other grammatical role in the contained relative clause or in the outer main clause, but that typically requires marking it with some other Type 5 noun suffix, and things get complicated. It’s usually better to just split things out into multiple sentences if you want something other than a head noun acting as either subject or object of the relative clause and as subject or object of the main clause. Relative clauses are “light” grammatical tools, ill suited for heavy grammatical work. If you want to get fancy with relative clauses, you probably don’t really want to speak Klingon. You just want to mess with it. Marking the head noun with {-‘e’} already is about as fancy as Klingon gets with relative clauses. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Sep 24, 2019, at 8:23 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Read:
{Qun 'oHbe'bogh vIghro''e' wIghajnISbe'} we don't need to have a cat which isn't a god
What is the role of the {-'e'} on the {vIghro'} ?
To give the "as for the.." meaning ? To mark the topic of the sentence ? To give emphasis to the {vIghro'} word ?
Or all of the above ?
~ bara'qa' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/24/2019 9:05 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Relative clauses are “light” grammatical tools, ill suited for heavy grammatical work. If you want to get fancy with relative clauses, you probably don’t really want to speak Klingon. You just want to mess with it. Marking the head noun with {-‘e’} already is about as fancy as Klingon gets with relative clauses.
Hang on there. I agree that you shouldn't construct extremely complicated relative clauses — or any clauses, really. Klingon is ill-suited to those long Victorian sentences. /No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water./ Don't do that. But there are times and situations when longer sentences might be appropriate in Klingon, and we shouldn't assign motivations to people who do or hint that they don't belong. What we /should/ do is suggest a better Klingon style and explain why it's more readable or understandable. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jiH:
{Qun 'oHbe'bogh vIghro''e' wIghajnISbe'} SuStel: It marks the head noun of the relative clause, which can be thought of as the topic of the relative clause. It does not mark the topic of the sentence as a whole.
ok, I think I understand this. But let me ask you. How would you translate, the {Qun 'oHbe'bogh vIghro''e' wIghajnISbe'} ? Would you translate it: "as for the cat which isn't a god, we don't need to have it" ? Or would you translate it as "we don't need to have a cat which isn't a god" ? - bara'qa'
On 9/24/2019 10:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jiH:
{Qun 'oHbe'bogh vIghro''e' wIghajnISbe'} SuStel: It marks the head noun of the relative clause, which can be thought of as the topic of the relative clause. It does not mark the topic of the sentence as a whole. ok, I think I understand this. But let me ask you.
How would you translate, the {Qun 'oHbe'bogh vIghro''e' wIghajnISbe'} ?
Would you translate it: "as for the cat which isn't a god, we don't need to have it" ?
Or would you translate it as "we don't need to have a cat which isn't a god" ?
/We don't need to have a cat which isn't a god./ The disambiguation role overrides the focus role. I believe this must be the case, or else you couldn't have disambiguation without focus. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I completely agree that I should not be so cavalier about assuming the motives of others when they stretch Klingon grammatical constructions beyond the bounds of functional clarity, and I agree that while there are exceptional times that long, complex Klingon sentences might be justified, in most cases, in the interest of clear expression and best translation one should always consider the option of breaking down a passage expressed in one sentence in another language into a greater number of smaller sentences so that the constraints of Klingon word order and affix combinations don’t hinder the mind’s capacity to parse the words back into ideas that another language can better handle within the boundaries of a single sentence. {yISIvQo’. jIqIDmeH mu’tlhegh’a’ vIqonpu'.} charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Sep 24, 2019, at 9:34 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/24/2019 9:05 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Relative clauses are “light” grammatical tools, ill suited for heavy grammatical work. If you want to get fancy with relative clauses, you probably don’t really want to speak Klingon. You just want to mess with it. Marking the head noun with {-‘e’} already is about as fancy as Klingon gets with relative clauses.
Hang on there. I agree that you shouldn't construct extremely complicated relative clauses — or any clauses, really. Klingon is ill-suited to those long Victorian sentences.
No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
Don't do that. But there are times and situations when longer sentences might be appropriate in Klingon, and we shouldn't assign motivations to people who do or hint that they don't belong. What we should do is suggest a better Klingon style and explain why it's more readable or understandable.
-- 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 9/24/2019 10:46 AM, Will Martin wrote:
{yISIvQo’. jIqIDmeH mu’tlhegh’a’ vIqonpu'.}
https://youtu.be/7VfytxJ_W2M?t=652 -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin