Disturbing irregularities
Recently, I assimilated 'oqranD "message to kronos" transcript, as this is found in klingonska. While I was processing it, the following irregularities came up : 1. {tera'vo' SarI'} "I hail you from Earth". The way I understand {-vo'}, it is used to denote "movement taking place away from somewhere". However, in this sentence, the meaning is rather "I'm at earth, and from here I'm communicating". Perhaps, one could say that "the thing moving away from earth is the message". But in that case, I would be expecting to see "from earth I'm sending this message". Not "from earth I hail you". 2. {'u' 'oH ghe'naQ pong} {yuQmajDaq may' ghe'naQ wa'DIch wIQoybogh 'oH 'u'} Obvious {-'e'} omission, on the last word of both sentences 3. {Marc Okrand jIH} "I am Marc Okrand" This sentence made my console light up like a christmas tree. We know that in order to ask "who are you", we use {SoH 'Iv} ; which means that the name comes after the pronoun. {SoH mayqel} = "you are michael". In this sense, in order to say "I am mayqel", the sentence should be formed {jIH mayqel}. Returning to the original sentence, {Marc Okrand jIH}, the way I understand it, it means "I am a Marc Okrand" ; not "I am Marc Okrand". Because irregularities like the aforementioned ones confuse me, I chose to delete the "message from kronos", from my data banks. mop Hurgh qunnoq
Am 21.06.2016 um 09:50 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
Recently, I assimilated 'oqranD "message to kronos" transcript, as this is found in klingonska.
It's also here: www.klingonwiki.net/En/MessageToKronos
While I was processing it, the following irregularities came up :
You are very easily confused by simple irregularities. How did you manage to learn english? ;-)
1. {tera'vo' SarI'} "I hail you from Earth".
I'll leave this to other's opinion.
2. {'u' 'oH ghe'naQ pong} Obvious {-'e'} omission, on the last word of both sentences
Yes, that's true. Everyone can do a mistake once in a while, even Okrand is not perfect. As a sidenote, Okrnd said that this text was prepared and spoken late at night, so he was not concentrated enough.
3. {Marc Okrand jIH} "I am Marc Okrand" This sentence made my console light up like a christmas tree.
nope. This is absolutely correct. There's no problem in saying {mayqel jIH} "I am Michael". Remember that in klingon, there are no articles, soyou can translate as "A klingon" or just "Klingon". It's the english that's strange. Next, {SoH 'Iv} equals to {'Iv SoH}, both words can act as the verb.
Because irregularities like the aforementioned ones confuse me, I chose to delete the "message from kronos", from my data banks.
You should not; it's the longest ever written and spoken speech by Okrand. Just because President Obama said a mistake like "He don't" in his speech, it does not mean he never spoke the whole thing. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 6/21/2016 3:50 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
1. {tera'vo' SarI'} "I hail you from Earth".
The way I understand {-vo'}, it is used to denote "movement taking place away from somewhere". However, in this sentence, the meaning is rather "I'm at earth, and from here I'm communicating". Perhaps, one could say that "the thing moving away from earth is the message". But in that case, I would be expecting to see "from earth I'm sending this message". Not "from earth I hail you".
"This suffix *[-vo']* is similar to *-Daq* but is used only when action is in a direction away from the noun suffixed with *-vo'**.*" It doesn't say there has to be literal movement, and it doesn't say the subject or object have to be moving away from something, just that the "action" is "in a direction away from." In Okrand's sentence, the action of hailing is being directed away from Earth. There is a similar sentence in /Conversational Klingon:/*pa'vo' pagh leghlu'* /the room has no view/ (literally, /from the room, one sees nothing/). The action of seeing is being directed away from the room.
Because irregularities like the aforementioned ones confuse me, I chose to delete the "message from kronos", from my data banks.
Keep it. Aside from the rest of the good grammar, it's useful to keep examples of Okrand's mistakes, if only to convince Worshipers at the Almighty Knees of Okrand that his every utterance is not holy writ. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Other examples of "action" - which as SuStel pointed out is not the same as movement -- "in a direction away from the noun suffixed with {-vo'}": naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be' I can't see well from here. CK chaq SoHvo' vay' vIje' vIneH [Maybe I'd like to buy something from you.] PK betleHvo' qotar mInDu' mIghDaq boch 'otlh Light reflects off the bat'leth into Fek'lhr's evil eyes. PB [sic! for {veqlargh mInDu'}] Another having to do with transmitting messages: HoD, yo'SeH yaHnIvvo' potlh De' wIHevtaH [Captain, we are receiving a priority message from (Fleet) Operations Command.] (ST5 notes) ... and yet another from the very same "Message to Kronos": ghe'naQ Daqvo' QInvam wIlab. We will place a homing device transmitting this message at the site of the opera. ('U'-MTK) {lab} "transmit data (away from a place)" already has an element of direction, but away from which place? {ghe'naQ Daqvo'} "from the site of the opera". (Okrand chose to ignore the bit about placing a homing device; interested Klingons are perfectly capable of homing in on the signal without being prompted. Consider it translator's license.) -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of SuStel Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:06 AM On 6/21/2016 3:50 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: 1. {tera'vo' SarI'} "I hail you from Earth". The way I understand {-vo'}, it is used to denote "movement taking place away from somewhere". However, in this sentence, the meaning is rather "I'm at earth, and from here I'm communicating". Perhaps, one could say that "the thing moving away from earth is the message". But in that case, I would be expecting to see "from earth I'm sending this message". Not "from earth I hail you". "This suffix [-vo'] is similar to -Daq but is used only when action is in a direction away from the noun suffixed with -vo'." It doesn't say there has to be literal movement, and it doesn't say the subject or object have to be moving away from something, just that the "action" is "in a direction away from." In Okrand's sentence, the action of hailing is being directed away from Earth. There is a similar sentence in Conversational Klingon: pa'vo' pagh leghlu' the room has no view (literally, from the room, one sees nothing). The action of seeing is being directed away from the room. Because irregularities like the aforementioned ones confuse me, I chose to delete the "message from kronos", from my data banks. Keep it. Aside from the rest of the good grammar, it's useful to keep examples of Okrand's mistakes, if only to convince Worshipers at the Almighty Knees of Okrand that his every utterance is not holy writ. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIHvaD Sujangta'mo', Satlho'. thank you all for replying. qawHaqwIjDaq, 'oqranD mu'tlhegh ghom vIghItlhqa'. I re-wrote 'oqranD message at my data banks. mIv Hurgh On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Other examples of "action” – which as SuStel pointed out is not the same as movement -- “in a direction away from the noun suffixed with {-vo’}":
naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'
I can't see well from here. CK
chaq SoHvo' vay' vIje' vIneH
[Maybe I'd like to buy something from you.] PK
betleHvo' qotar mInDu' mIghDaq boch 'otlh
Light reflects off the bat'leth into Fek'lhr's
evil eyes. PB [sic! for {veqlargh mInDu'}]
Another having to do with transmitting messages:
HoD, yo'SeH yaHnIvvo' potlh De' wIHevtaH
[Captain, we are receiving a priority message from
(Fleet) Operations Command.] (ST5 notes)
… and yet another from the very same “Message to Kronos”:
ghe'naQ Daqvo' QInvam wIlab.
We will place a homing device transmitting this
message at the site of the opera. ('U'-MTK)
{lab} “transmit data (away from a place)” already has an element of direction, but away from which place? {ghe’naQ Daqvo’} “from the site of the opera”. (Okrand chose to ignore the bit about placing a homing device; interested Klingons are perfectly capable of homing in on the signal without being prompted. Consider it translator’s license.)
--
Voragh
tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a'
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of SuStel Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:06 AM
On 6/21/2016 3:50 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
1. {tera'vo' SarI'} "I hail you from Earth".
The way I understand {-vo'}, it is used to denote "movement taking
place away from somewhere". However, in this sentence, the meaning is
rather "I'm at earth, and from here I'm communicating". Perhaps, one
could say that "the thing moving away from earth is the message". But
in that case, I would be expecting to see "from earth I'm sending this
message". Not "from earth I hail you".
"This suffix [-vo'] is similar to -Daq but is used only when action is in a direction away from the noun suffixed with -vo'."
It doesn't say there has to be literal movement, and it doesn't say the subject or object have to be moving away from something, just that the "action" is "in a direction away from." In Okrand's sentence, the action of hailing is being directed away from Earth.
There is a similar sentence in Conversational Klingon: pa'vo' pagh leghlu' the room has no view (literally, from the room, one sees nothing). The action of seeing is being directed away from the room.
Because irregularities like the aforementioned ones confuse me, I
chose to delete the "message from kronos", from my data banks.
Keep it. Aside from the rest of the good grammar, it's useful to keep examples of Okrand's mistakes, if only to convince Worshipers at the Almighty Knees of Okrand that his every utterance is not holy writ.
--
SuStel
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
There's no problem in saying {mayqel jIH} "I am Michael" Next, {SoH 'Iv} equals to {'Iv SoH}, both words can act as the verb.
ok, I came back.. if I write {'elaDya'ngan jIH}, this can only mean "I am (a) greek", right ? So, how come if I write {mayqel jIH}, this can mean "I am michael' ? even if we take into account, that klingon does not have "a/the", then again the meaning can only mean "I am a michael". as I understand , the subject is defined as "one who is, or one who does" ; and since we use OVS, then how can we place the "one who is, or one who does", before the verb ? On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:22 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIHvaD Sujangta'mo', Satlho'. thank you all for replying.
qawHaqwIjDaq, 'oqranD mu'tlhegh ghom vIghItlhqa'. I re-wrote 'oqranD message at my data banks.
mIv Hurgh
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Other examples of "action” – which as SuStel pointed out is not the same as movement -- “in a direction away from the noun suffixed with {-vo’}":
naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'
I can't see well from here. CK
chaq SoHvo' vay' vIje' vIneH
[Maybe I'd like to buy something from you.] PK
betleHvo' qotar mInDu' mIghDaq boch 'otlh
Light reflects off the bat'leth into Fek'lhr's
evil eyes. PB [sic! for {veqlargh mInDu'}]
Another having to do with transmitting messages:
HoD, yo'SeH yaHnIvvo' potlh De' wIHevtaH
[Captain, we are receiving a priority message from
(Fleet) Operations Command.] (ST5 notes)
… and yet another from the very same “Message to Kronos”:
ghe'naQ Daqvo' QInvam wIlab.
We will place a homing device transmitting this
message at the site of the opera. ('U'-MTK)
{lab} “transmit data (away from a place)” already has an element of direction, but away from which place? {ghe’naQ Daqvo’} “from the site of the opera”. (Okrand chose to ignore the bit about placing a homing device; interested Klingons are perfectly capable of homing in on the signal without being prompted. Consider it translator’s license.)
--
Voragh
tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a'
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of SuStel Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:06 AM
On 6/21/2016 3:50 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
1. {tera'vo' SarI'} "I hail you from Earth".
The way I understand {-vo'}, it is used to denote "movement taking
place away from somewhere". However, in this sentence, the meaning is
rather "I'm at earth, and from here I'm communicating". Perhaps, one
could say that "the thing moving away from earth is the message". But
in that case, I would be expecting to see "from earth I'm sending this
message". Not "from earth I hail you".
"This suffix [-vo'] is similar to -Daq but is used only when action is in a direction away from the noun suffixed with -vo'."
It doesn't say there has to be literal movement, and it doesn't say the subject or object have to be moving away from something, just that the "action" is "in a direction away from." In Okrand's sentence, the action of hailing is being directed away from Earth.
There is a similar sentence in Conversational Klingon: pa'vo' pagh leghlu' the room has no view (literally, from the room, one sees nothing). The action of seeing is being directed away from the room.
Because irregularities like the aforementioned ones confuse me, I
chose to delete the "message from kronos", from my data banks.
Keep it. Aside from the rest of the good grammar, it's useful to keep examples of Okrand's mistakes, if only to convince Worshipers at the Almighty Knees of Okrand that his every utterance is not holy writ.
--
SuStel
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/21/2016 1:54 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
There's no problem in saying {mayqel jIH} "I am Michael" Next, {SoH 'Iv} equals to {'Iv SoH}, both words can act as the verb. ok, I came back..
if I write {'elaDya'ngan jIH}, this can only mean "I am (a) greek", right ? So, how come if I write {mayqel jIH}, this can mean "I am michael' ? even if we take into account, that klingon does not have "a/the", then again the meaning can only mean "I am a michael".
A Klingon to-be sentence expresses the idea /X = Y./ *'elaDya'ngan jIH* /me = Greek;/ *mayqel jIH*/me = Michael./ There is no /a,/ /an,/ or /the/ in Klingon.
as I understand , the subject is defined as "one who is, or one who does" ; and since we use OVS, then how can we place the "one who is, or one who does", before the verb ?
A Klingon to-be sentence is not of the form object-verb-subject. You should more or less ignore the ideas of subject and object with regard to to-be sentences. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
as I understand , the subject is defined as "one who is, or one who does" ; and since we use OVS, then how can we place the "one who is, or one who does", before the verb ?
As SuStel suggests, Klingon "pronouns" are {chuvmey} and may not always behave like we'd expect verbs to. However, I think it makes perfect sense in this case. Remember, {'Iv} is a pronoun, just like {SoH}, so you can say things like: {chotta'wI' 'Iv?} = "Who is the murderer?" [nuvvetlh 'Iv?} = "Whose that person?" ________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 19:54 To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Disturbing irregularities
There's no problem in saying {mayqel jIH} "I am Michael" Next, {SoH 'Iv} equals to {'Iv SoH}, both words can act as the verb.
ok, I came back.. if I write {'elaDya'ngan jIH}, this can only mean "I am (a) greek", right ? So, how come if I write {mayqel jIH}, this can mean "I am michael' ? even if we take into account, that klingon does not have "a/the", then again the meaning can only mean "I am a michael". as I understand , the subject is defined as "one who is, or one who does" ; and since we use OVS, then how can we place the "one who is, or one who does", before the verb ? On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:22 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIHvaD Sujangta'mo', Satlho'. thank you all for replying.
qawHaqwIjDaq, 'oqranD mu'tlhegh ghom vIghItlhqa'. I re-wrote 'oqranD message at my data banks.
mIv Hurgh
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Other examples of "action” – which as SuStel pointed out is not the same as movement -- “in a direction away from the noun suffixed with {-vo’}":
naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'
I can't see well from here. CK
chaq SoHvo' vay' vIje' vIneH
[Maybe I'd like to buy something from you.] PK
betleHvo' qotar mInDu' mIghDaq boch 'otlh
Light reflects off the bat'leth into Fek'lhr's
evil eyes. PB [sic! for {veqlargh mInDu'}]
Another having to do with transmitting messages:
HoD, yo'SeH yaHnIvvo' potlh De' wIHevtaH
[Captain, we are receiving a priority message from
(Fleet) Operations Command.] (ST5 notes)
… and yet another from the very same “Message to Kronos”:
ghe'naQ Daqvo' QInvam wIlab.
We will place a homing device transmitting this
message at the site of the opera. ('U'-MTK)
{lab} “transmit data (away from a place)” already has an element of direction, but away from which place? {ghe’naQ Daqvo’} “from the site of the opera”. (Okrand chose to ignore the bit about placing a homing device; interested Klingons are perfectly capable of homing in on the signal without being prompted. Consider it translator’s license.)
--
Voragh
tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a'
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of SuStel Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:06 AM
On 6/21/2016 3:50 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
1. {tera'vo' SarI'} "I hail you from Earth".
The way I understand {-vo'}, it is used to denote "movement taking
place away from somewhere". However, in this sentence, the meaning is
rather "I'm at earth, and from here I'm communicating". Perhaps, one
could say that "the thing moving away from earth is the message". But
in that case, I would be expecting to see "from earth I'm sending this
message". Not "from earth I hail you".
"This suffix [-vo'] is similar to -Daq but is used only when action is in a direction away from the noun suffixed with -vo'."
It doesn't say there has to be literal movement, and it doesn't say the subject or object have to be moving away from something, just that the "action" is "in a direction away from." In Okrand's sentence, the action of hailing is being directed away from Earth.
There is a similar sentence in Conversational Klingon: pa'vo' pagh leghlu' the room has no view (literally, from the room, one sees nothing). The action of seeing is being directed away from the room.
Because irregularities like the aforementioned ones confuse me, I
chose to delete the "message from kronos", from my data banks.
Keep it. Aside from the rest of the good grammar, it's useful to keep examples of Okrand's mistakes, if only to convince Worshipers at the Almighty Knees of Okrand that his every utterance is not holy writ.
--
SuStel
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jun 21, 2016, at 13:54, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no problem in saying {mayqel jIH} "I am Michael" Next, {SoH 'Iv} equals to {'Iv SoH}, both words can act as the verb.
ok, I came back..
if I write {'elaDya'ngan jIH}, this can only mean "I am (a) greek", right ? So, how come if I write {mayqel jIH}, this can mean "I am michael' ? even if we take into account, that klingon does not have "a/the", then again the meaning can only mean "I am a michael".
I think your mistake is that you are translating "_ jIH" as "I am a _", when in fact it means simply "I am _". However, the word {'elaDya'ngan} can refer either to a specific Greek person ("the Greek") or to a randomly selected one ("a Greek"). You should think of the English article as being part of the translation of the Klingon noun, rather than the pronoun-as-verb. -SapIr
SuStel, Felix, and SapIr thank you for replying ; I understand now the grammar, as far as the statement "I am (...)" is concerned ; But I have one last question : Since one can say {mayqel jIH} and {jIH mayqel} for "I am michael", then in order to ask "who are you", one can say both {SoH 'Iv} and {'Iv SoH}, right ? QIn ghomvam bopbe' ghelmeH mu'tlheghvam, 'a jIghelnIS : {Humerus} QInwIj boHevpu' ? this is question isn't about this thread, but I need to ask : did you receive my Humerus post ? QInvetlh vIghItlhmeH, (ghe''or wa' qa'rI'vo') (ghe''or latlh qa'rI'Daq) vIve'nISta'. I went through hell in order to write it.. mayqel On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:40 PM, <kechpaja@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 21, 2016, at 13:54, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no problem in saying {mayqel jIH} "I am Michael" Next, {SoH 'Iv} equals to {'Iv SoH}, both words can act as the verb.
ok, I came back..
if I write {'elaDya'ngan jIH}, this can only mean "I am (a) greek", right ? So, how come if I write {mayqel jIH}, this can mean "I am michael' ? even if we take into account, that klingon does not have "a/the", then again the meaning can only mean "I am a michael".
I think your mistake is that you are translating "_ jIH" as "I am a _", when in fact it means simply "I am _". However, the word {'elaDya'ngan} can refer either to a specific Greek person ("the Greek") or to a randomly selected one ("a Greek").
You should think of the English article as being part of the translation of the Klingon noun, rather than the pronoun-as-verb.
-SapIr _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
---quote--- QIn ghomvam bopbe' ghelmeH mu'tlheghvam, 'a jIghelnIS : {Humerus} QInwIj boHevpu' ? this is question isn't about this thread, but I need to ask : did you receive my Humerus post ? ---endquote--- I received it, so I assume the others did too. -QISta' On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:01 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel, Felix, and SapIr thank you for replying ; I understand now the grammar, as far as the statement "I am (...)" is concerned ; But I have one last question :
Since one can say {mayqel jIH} and {jIH mayqel} for "I am michael", then in order to ask "who are you", one can say both {SoH 'Iv} and {'Iv SoH}, right ?
QIn ghomvam bopbe' ghelmeH mu'tlheghvam, 'a jIghelnIS : {Humerus} QInwIj boHevpu' ? this is question isn't about this thread, but I need to ask : did you receive my Humerus post ?
QInvetlh vIghItlhmeH, (ghe''or wa' qa'rI'vo') (ghe''or latlh qa'rI'Daq) vIve'nISta'. I went through hell in order to write it..
mayqel
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:40 PM, <kechpaja@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 21, 2016, at 13:54, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no problem in saying {mayqel jIH} "I am Michael" Next, {SoH 'Iv} equals to {'Iv SoH}, both words can act as the verb.
ok, I came back..
if I write {'elaDya'ngan jIH}, this can only mean "I am (a) greek", right ? So, how come if I write {mayqel jIH}, this can mean "I am michael' ? even if we take into account, that klingon does not have "a/the", then again the meaning can only mean "I am a michael".
I think your mistake is that you are translating "_ jIH" as "I am a _", when in fact it means simply "I am _". However, the word {'elaDya'ngan} can refer either to a specific Greek person ("the Greek") or to a randomly selected one ("a Greek").
You should think of the English article as being part of the translation of the Klingon noun, rather than the pronoun-as-verb.
-SapIr _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
QISta' qatlho' ! thank you christa ! On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com> wrote:
---quote--- QIn ghomvam bopbe' ghelmeH mu'tlheghvam, 'a jIghelnIS : {Humerus} QInwIj boHevpu' ? this is question isn't about this thread, but I need to ask : did you receive my Humerus post ? ---endquote---
I received it, so I assume the others did too.
-QISta'
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:01 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel, Felix, and SapIr thank you for replying ; I understand now the grammar, as far as the statement "I am (...)" is concerned ; But I have one last question :
Since one can say {mayqel jIH} and {jIH mayqel} for "I am michael", then in order to ask "who are you", one can say both {SoH 'Iv} and {'Iv SoH}, right ?
QIn ghomvam bopbe' ghelmeH mu'tlheghvam, 'a jIghelnIS : {Humerus} QInwIj boHevpu' ? this is question isn't about this thread, but I need to ask : did you receive my Humerus post ?
QInvetlh vIghItlhmeH, (ghe''or wa' qa'rI'vo') (ghe''or latlh qa'rI'Daq) vIve'nISta'. I went through hell in order to write it..
mayqel
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:40 PM, <kechpaja@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 21, 2016, at 13:54, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no problem in saying {mayqel jIH} "I am Michael" Next, {SoH 'Iv} equals to {'Iv SoH}, both words can act as the verb.
ok, I came back..
if I write {'elaDya'ngan jIH}, this can only mean "I am (a) greek", right ? So, how come if I write {mayqel jIH}, this can mean "I am michael' ? even if we take into account, that klingon does not have "a/the", then again the meaning can only mean "I am a michael".
I think your mistake is that you are translating "_ jIH" as "I am a _", when in fact it means simply "I am _". However, the word {'elaDya'ngan} can refer either to a specific Greek person ("the Greek") or to a randomly selected one ("a Greek").
You should think of the English article as being part of the translation of the Klingon noun, rather than the pronoun-as-verb.
-SapIr _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Theoretically there could be a situation in which you might want to say {jIH ghaH mayqel'e'}, which would be similar to "Michael is me!". E.g. when you notice that a person named mayqel is impersonating you, like an actor or something (though then {Da} might be a better choice. But I would say that this way of saying it is probably pragmatically marked. - André 2016-06-22 12:39 GMT+02:00 De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>:
On 22 June 2016 at 09:01, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Since one can say {mayqel jIH} and {jIH mayqel} for "I am michael",
lughbe' qechvam.
Saying {jIH mayqel} is like saying "Me Tarzan". It'll be understood, but it's not grammatical.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 22 June 2016 at 15:17, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
Theoretically there could be a situation in which you might want to say {jIH ghaH mayqel'e'}, which would be similar to "Michael is me!". E.g. when you notice that a person named mayqel is impersonating you, like an actor or something (though then {Da} might be a better choice. But I would say that this way of saying it is probably pragmatically marked.
Even then, I'd say something like {mayqel jIH'e'} "I, and only I, am Michael" (see the example using {jIH'e'} in TKD 3.3.5). For extra emphasis, maybe even: {jIH *jIH* mayqel'e'} for "Michael is *me*"! :-) I think it's weird to refer to oneself using {ghaH}, but as you say it's marked. -- De'vID
De'vID:
Saying {jIH mayqel} is like saying "Me Tarzan". It'll be understood, but it's not grammatical.
thank you for replying ; however what you wrote, contradicts SuStel's input which is the following : SuStel :
A Klingon to-be sentence expresses the idea X = Y. 'elaDya'ngan jIH me = Greek; mayqel jIH me = Michael. There is no a, an, or the in Klingon."
if X=Y, then Y=X right ? furthermore, SuStel wrote.. SuStel :
You should more or less ignore the ideas of subject and object with regard to to-be sentences.
I can understand ignoring the ideas of subject and object with regard to to-be sentences ; but how placing the {mayqel} after the {jIH} is able to produce "me michael" ? Since in to-be sentences X=Y and vice versa, if {jIH mayqel} produces "me michael", then {mayqel jIH} must produce the same result too. right ? I am confused now ; just as I was beginning to understand.. On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:39 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 June 2016 at 09:01, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Since one can say {mayqel jIH} and {jIH mayqel} for "I am michael",
lughbe' qechvam.
Saying {jIH mayqel} is like saying "Me Tarzan". It'll be understood, but it's not grammatical.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/22/2016 9:18 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
De'vID:
Saying {jIH mayqel} is like saying "Me Tarzan". It'll be understood, but it's not grammatical. thank you for replying ; however what you wrote, contradicts SuStel's input which is the following :
SuStel :
A Klingon to-be sentence expresses the idea X = Y. 'elaDya'ngan jIH me = Greek; mayqel jIH me = Michael. There is no a, an, or the in Klingon." if X=Y, then Y=X right ?
I did not intend to suggest that Klingon grammar can be manipulated by the rules of mathematics.
furthermore, SuStel wrote..
SuStel :
You should more or less ignore the ideas of subject and object with regard to to-be sentences. I can understand ignoring the ideas of subject and object with regard to to-be sentences ; but how placing the {mayqel} after the {jIH} is able to produce "me michael" ? Since in to-be sentences X=Y and vice versa, if {jIH mayqel} produces "me michael", then {mayqel jIH} must produce the same result too. right ?
I don't quite agree with De'vID's analogy of /me Tarzan./ Klingon's /normal/ mode of to-be sentences are like /me Tarzan./ *tlhIngan jIH* is the equivalent of saying /me Klingon./ The only difference is that the Klingon pronoun can take suffixes for added meaning. Saying *SuStel 'oH pongwIj'e'* is the equivalent of saying /SuStel me name./ Notice that I say /equivalent./ Do not try to copy the grammar of /me Tarzan/ into Klingon. It is only an illustration. Klingon's to-be sentence rules must simply be learned. They are what they are because they simply are. When associating a noun with a pronoun, the noun comes first. It doesn't matter whether the noun is a common noun or a proper noun. *Human **jIH. SuStel jIH.* When linking two nouns together, one noun is the "topic" or "subject" noun. This is the noun you're "starting" with. The other noun is the noun being introduced later. *Human **ghaH SuStel'e' */as for SuStel, he is a human./ Here, *SuStel* is the topic or subject; *Human* is the noun being introduced to associate with him. *yaHDajDaq ghaHtaH SuStel'e'* /as for SuStel, he is at his duty station./ *SuStel* is the topic or subject; *yaHDajDaq* is being used to associate with him. *SoH 'Iv* and *'Iv SoH* appear in both forms because (a) Okrand probably forgot he did it one way, and (b) *'Iv* is a kind of pronoun too, so either word can satisfy the pronoun part of a to-be sentence. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, I think I understand.. so, if I want to ask "who are you", then both {SoH 'Iv}, and {'Iv SoH} are the same, right ? and if I want to ask 'what is this", then both {'oH nuq}, and {nuq 'oH} are the same right ? On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:43 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/22/2016 9:18 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
De'vID:
Saying {jIH mayqel} is like saying "Me Tarzan". It'll be understood, but it's not grammatical.
thank you for replying ; however what you wrote, contradicts SuStel's input which is the following :
SuStel :
A Klingon to-be sentence expresses the idea X = Y. 'elaDya'ngan jIH me = Greek; mayqel jIH me = Michael. There is no a, an, or the in Klingon."
if X=Y, then Y=X right ?
I did not intend to suggest that Klingon grammar can be manipulated by the rules of mathematics.
furthermore, SuStel wrote..
SuStel :
You should more or less ignore the ideas of subject and object with regard to to-be sentences.
I can understand ignoring the ideas of subject and object with regard to to-be sentences ; but how placing the {mayqel} after the {jIH} is able to produce "me michael" ? Since in to-be sentences X=Y and vice versa, if {jIH mayqel} produces "me michael", then {mayqel jIH} must produce the same result too. right ?
I don't quite agree with De'vID's analogy of me Tarzan. Klingon's normal mode of to-be sentences are like me Tarzan. tlhIngan jIH is the equivalent of saying me Klingon. The only difference is that the Klingon pronoun can take suffixes for added meaning. Saying SuStel 'oH pongwIj'e' is the equivalent of saying SuStel me name.
Notice that I say equivalent. Do not try to copy the grammar of me Tarzan into Klingon. It is only an illustration. Klingon's to-be sentence rules must simply be learned. They are what they are because they simply are.
When associating a noun with a pronoun, the noun comes first. It doesn't matter whether the noun is a common noun or a proper noun. Human jIH. SuStel jIH.
When linking two nouns together, one noun is the "topic" or "subject" noun. This is the noun you're "starting" with. The other noun is the noun being introduced later. Human ghaH SuStel'e' as for SuStel, he is a human. Here, SuStel is the topic or subject; Human is the noun being introduced to associate with him. yaHDajDaq ghaHtaH SuStel'e' as for SuStel, he is at his duty station. SuStel is the topic or subject; yaHDajDaq is being used to associate with him.
SoH 'Iv and 'Iv SoH appear in both forms because (a) Okrand probably forgot he did it one way, and (b) 'Iv is a kind of pronoun too, so either word can satisfy the pronoun part of a to-be sentence.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/22/2016 10:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
so, if I want to ask "who are you", then both {SoH 'Iv}, and {'Iv SoH} are the same, right ?
and if I want to ask 'what is this", then both {'oH nuq}, and {nuq 'oH} are the same right ?
Yes. We've never seen something like *'oH nuq* before, but I would accept it. The canonical way to say /what is this?/ is *Dochvam nuq?* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
The canonical way to say what is this? is Dochvam nuq?
and what do you think about : 1. {nuq 'oH Dochvam'e'} for what is this ? 2. {ponglIj nuq} ? for what is your name ? 3. {nuq mI'lIj} ? for what is your number ? 4. (nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'} for what is your number ? On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:29 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/22/2016 10:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
so, if I want to ask "who are you", then both {SoH 'Iv}, and {'Iv SoH} are the same, right ?
and if I want to ask 'what is this", then both {'oH nuq}, and {nuq 'oH} are the same right ?
Yes. We've never seen something like 'oH nuq before, but I would accept it. The canonical way to say what is this? is Dochvam nuq?
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/22/2016 10:35 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
1. {nuq 'oH Dochvam'e'} for what is this ?
Just fine.
2. {ponglIj nuq} ? for what is your name ?
Fine.
3. {nuq mI'lIj} ? for what is your number ?
Fine. This even appears in /Conversational Klingon:/ *nuq mI'lIj tera'ngan* /what is your number, Terran?/
4. (nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'} for what is your number ?
Fine. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, as I understand this to be, these are the rules : 1. in questions (who are you, what is this, what is your, who is he etc) the {'Iv} and {nuq}, can be placed either in the beginning or at the end of the sentence. examples : a. {'Iv SoH}, {SoH 'Iv} b. {nuq 'oH}, {'oH nuq} c. {nuq mI'lIj}, {mI'lIj nuq} d. {Dochvam nuq} {nuq Dochvam} 2. in questions like c and d, the placement of {'oH} (in the middle of the sentence) is optional. 3. when someone is answering these questions, and he says "it is a..", "he is a..", "he is..", then "the answer ALWAYS comes first, followed by the appropriate {jIH}, {ghaH}, {'oH}". examples : mayqel jIH SuStel SoH tera'ngan ghaH Ha'DIbaH 'oH 4. However, if the answer goes "my number is 2242221313", then we ALWAYS write : 2242221313 'oH mI'lIj'e' right ? (please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:50 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/22/2016 10:35 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
1. {nuq 'oH Dochvam'e'} for what is this ?
Just fine.
2. {ponglIj nuq} ? for what is your name ?
Fine.
3. {nuq mI'lIj} ? for what is your number ?
Fine. This even appears in Conversational Klingon: nuq mI'lIj tera'ngan what is your number, Terran?
4. (nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'} for what is your number ?
Fine.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
the "2242221313" is just a random number.. On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, as I understand this to be, these are the rules :
1. in questions (who are you, what is this, what is your, who is he etc) the {'Iv} and {nuq}, can be placed either in the beginning or at the end of the sentence.
examples : a. {'Iv SoH}, {SoH 'Iv} b. {nuq 'oH}, {'oH nuq} c. {nuq mI'lIj}, {mI'lIj nuq} d. {Dochvam nuq} {nuq Dochvam}
2. in questions like c and d, the placement of {'oH} (in the middle of the sentence) is optional.
3. when someone is answering these questions, and he says "it is a..", "he is a..", "he is..", then "the answer ALWAYS comes first, followed by the appropriate {jIH}, {ghaH}, {'oH}".
examples : mayqel jIH SuStel SoH tera'ngan ghaH Ha'DIbaH 'oH
4. However, if the answer goes "my number is 2242221313", then we ALWAYS write :
2242221313 'oH mI'lIj'e'
right ?
(please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes)
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:50 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/22/2016 10:35 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
1. {nuq 'oH Dochvam'e'} for what is this ?
Just fine.
2. {ponglIj nuq} ? for what is your name ?
Fine.
3. {nuq mI'lIj} ? for what is your number ?
Fine. This even appears in Conversational Klingon: nuq mI'lIj tera'ngan what is your number, Terran?
4. (nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'} for what is your number ?
Fine.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/22/2016 11:44 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, as I understand this to be, these are the rules :
1. in questions (who are you, what is this, what is your, who is he etc) the {'Iv} and {nuq}, can be placed either in the beginning or at the end of the sentence.
examples : a. {'Iv SoH}, {SoH 'Iv} b. {nuq 'oH}, {'oH nuq} c. {nuq mI'lIj}, {mI'lIj nuq} d. {Dochvam nuq} {nuq Dochvam}
2. in questions like c and d, the placement of {'oH} (in the middle of the sentence) is optional.
3. when someone is answering these questions, and he says "it is a..", "he is a..", "he is..", then "the answer ALWAYS comes first, followed by the appropriate {jIH}, {ghaH}, {'oH}".
examples : mayqel jIH SuStel SoH tera'ngan ghaH Ha'DIbaH 'oH
4. However, if the answer goes "my number is 2242221313", then we ALWAYS write :
2242221313 'oH mI'lIj'e'
right ?
(please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes)
Yes. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
thank you ! On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:46 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/22/2016 11:44 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, as I understand this to be, these are the rules :
1. in questions (who are you, what is this, what is your, who is he etc) the {'Iv} and {nuq}, can be placed either in the beginning or at the end of the sentence.
examples : a. {'Iv SoH}, {SoH 'Iv} b. {nuq 'oH}, {'oH nuq} c. {nuq mI'lIj}, {mI'lIj nuq} d. {Dochvam nuq} {nuq Dochvam}
2. in questions like c and d, the placement of {'oH} (in the middle of the sentence) is optional.
3. when someone is answering these questions, and he says "it is a..", "he is a..", "he is..", then "the answer ALWAYS comes first, followed by the appropriate {jIH}, {ghaH}, {'oH}".
examples : mayqel jIH SuStel SoH tera'ngan ghaH Ha'DIbaH 'oH
4. However, if the answer goes "my number is 2242221313", then we ALWAYS write :
2242221313 'oH mI'lIj'e'
right ?
(please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes)
Yes.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I returned with a final (hopefully) question ; In the case that we ask "where is a/the", then the {'oH} or {ghaH}, in the middle is imperative right ? For example I can only say {nuqDaq 'oH puH Duj'e'} and not {nuqDaq puH Duj}, right ? On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:50 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
thank you !
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:46 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/22/2016 11:44 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, as I understand this to be, these are the rules :
1. in questions (who are you, what is this, what is your, who is he etc) the {'Iv} and {nuq}, can be placed either in the beginning or at the end of the sentence.
examples : a. {'Iv SoH}, {SoH 'Iv} b. {nuq 'oH}, {'oH nuq} c. {nuq mI'lIj}, {mI'lIj nuq} d. {Dochvam nuq} {nuq Dochvam}
2. in questions like c and d, the placement of {'oH} (in the middle of the sentence) is optional.
3. when someone is answering these questions, and he says "it is a..", "he is a..", "he is..", then "the answer ALWAYS comes first, followed by the appropriate {jIH}, {ghaH}, {'oH}".
examples : mayqel jIH SuStel SoH tera'ngan ghaH Ha'DIbaH 'oH
4. However, if the answer goes "my number is 2242221313", then we ALWAYS write :
2242221313 'oH mI'lIj'e'
right ?
(please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes)
Yes.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/22/2016 12:34 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I returned with a final (hopefully) question ;
In the case that we ask "where is a/the", then the {'oH} or {ghaH}, in the middle is imperative right ?
For example I can only say {nuqDaq 'oH puH Duj'e'} and not {nuqDaq puH Duj}, right ?
You may omit the pronoun. Consider, for instance, /Power Klingon/'s *nuqDaq puchpa'* /where is the bathroom? [clipped]. /I would//accept *nuqDaq puH Duj* as grammatical. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, thanks ! ..but when the time comes for someone to answer a "where is a/the" question, then the {'oHtaH} or {ghaHtaH} is imperative, right ? for example, we can only say {tawDaq 'oHtaH puH Duj'e'}, and not {tawDaq puH Duj}, right ? On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:37 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/22/2016 12:34 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I returned with a final (hopefully) question ;
In the case that we ask "where is a/the", then the {'oH} or {ghaH}, in the middle is imperative right ?
For example I can only say {nuqDaq 'oH puH Duj'e'} and not {nuqDaq puH Duj}, right ?
You may omit the pronoun. Consider, for instance, Power Klingon's nuqDaq puchpa' where is the bathroom? [clipped].
I would accept nuqDaq puH Duj as grammatical.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/22/2016 12:53 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
..but when the time comes for someone to answer a "where is a/the" question, then the {'oHtaH} or {ghaHtaH} is imperative, right ?
for example, we can only say {tawDaq 'oHtaH puH Duj'e'}, and not {tawDaq puH Duj}, right ?
It seems to be. I sometimes wonder if the continuous aspect is used to represent temporary location as opposed to permanent location, but some canon contradicts this. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I have thought of this too ; Perhaps 'oqranD thought : 'the person who asks is uncertain, so he utilizes (if he chooses) the pronoun without the {-taH} ; but the person who answers is certain that the answer he is providing is taking place for the duration of the conversation, thus he is using the {-taH}, to express the "now that I'm answering this/that is taking place"." On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:56 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/22/2016 12:53 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
..but when the time comes for someone to answer a "where is a/the" question, then the {'oHtaH} or {ghaHtaH} is imperative, right ?
for example, we can only say {tawDaq 'oHtaH puH Duj'e'}, and not {tawDaq puH Duj}, right ?
It seems to be. I sometimes wonder if the continuous aspect is used to represent temporary location as opposed to permanent location, but some canon contradicts this.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 22 June 2016 at 17:42, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, as I understand this to be, these are the rules :
While they correctly describe what's going on, they are not "the" rules (in the sense that they are the rules given in TKD and subsequent writings by Okrand). You're inventing a different way to describe the output of rules we already have. These are "the rules": 1. {'Iv} and {nuq} can take the place of the answer in a question sentence. (TKD 6.4) 2. {'Iv} and {nuq} can act like pronouns. (msn newsgroup message 1996-12-12: http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-12-12b-news.txt) 3. Clipped Klingon: some elements of a sentence may be left out in some situations. Regarding #3, based on canon, when the sentence is {nuq[Daq] 'oH X'e'}, clipped Klingon allows {nuq[Daq] X}. I'm not sure if this can be generalised to {'Iv}, but it seems reasonable and I would accept it. -- De'vID
On 22 June 2016 at 15:43, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
SoH 'Iv and 'Iv SoH appear in both forms because (a) Okrand probably forgot he did it one way, and (b) 'Iv is a kind of pronoun too, so either word can satisfy the pronoun part of a to-be sentence.
Whether {SoH 'Iv} came about because Okrand forgot that you could write {'Iv SoH} or he did it deliberately, I think it makes more sense. TKD 6.4 explains that {'Iv} takes the place of the answer in a sentence. If we strictly follow TKD "by the book" (and of course I should mention it's only a grammatical sketch), the answer to {'Iv SoH} should take the form {X SoH} (and not {X jIH}). {SoH 'Iv} avoids this problem. But both appear in canon, so apparently both are acceptable. -- De'vID
DevID:
the answer to {'Iv SoH} should take the form {X SoH} (and not {X jIH}). {SoH 'Iv} avoids this problem.
I can't understand this. Why when someone asks me {'Iv SoH}, I can't reply saying {mayqel jIH}, and be consistent with the TKD ? I would be placing the answer {mayqel} at the place of the {'Iv} and I would have replaced -necessarily- the {SoH}, with {jIH}. Is this replacement, the point you're trying to make ? Do you mean, that by using {SoH 'Iv} and replying {mayqel jIH}, the replacement matter is overcome, because the answer doesn't just replace the {'Iv} of the {'Iv SoH} (if we had used it), but employs a different word order altogether ? But if that's the case, then the {SoH 'Iv}, not only it doesn't address any matter at all, but it contradicts the rule that "the {'Iv} takes the place of the answer in a sentence", since the answer {mayqel jIH}, doesn't just replace the {'Iv} but changes the word order altogether. This whole matter resembles quick sand ; the more I try to understand, the deeper I get.. On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:24 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 June 2016 at 15:43, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
SoH 'Iv and 'Iv SoH appear in both forms because (a) Okrand probably forgot he did it one way, and (b) 'Iv is a kind of pronoun too, so either word can satisfy the pronoun part of a to-be sentence.
Whether {SoH 'Iv} came about because Okrand forgot that you could write {'Iv SoH} or he did it deliberately, I think it makes more sense. TKD 6.4 explains that {'Iv} takes the place of the answer in a sentence. If we strictly follow TKD "by the book" (and of course I should mention it's only a grammatical sketch), the answer to {'Iv SoH} should take the form {X SoH} (and not {X jIH}). {SoH 'Iv} avoids this problem. But both appear in canon, so apparently both are acceptable.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 23 June 2016 at 11:49, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DevID:
the answer to {'Iv SoH} should take the form {X SoH} (and not {X jIH}). {SoH 'Iv} avoids this problem.
I can't understand this. Why when someone asks me {'Iv SoH}, I can't reply saying {mayqel jIH}, and be consistent with the TKD ?
I would be placing the answer {mayqel} at the place of the {'Iv} and I would have replaced -necessarily- the {SoH}, with {jIH}. Is this replacement, the point you're trying to make ?
TKD 6.4 says: [For {'Iv} "who?" and {nuq} "what?" the question word fits into the sentence in the position that would be occupied by the answer.] Strictly speaking, if you want to be some kind of TKD-literalist, to form the answer to a question with {'Iv} or {nuq}, you take the question and just replace the question word with the answer. Obviously, if I ask you {'Iv SoH}, the correct answer isn't {mayqel SoH}.
Do you mean, that by using {SoH 'Iv} and replying {mayqel jIH}, the replacement matter is overcome, because the answer doesn't just replace the {'Iv} of the {'Iv SoH} (if we had used it), but employs a different word order altogether ?
It employs a different _rule_ altogether.
But if that's the case, then the {SoH 'Iv}, not only it doesn't address any matter at all, but it contradicts the rule that "the {'Iv} takes the place of the answer in a sentence", since the answer {mayqel jIH}, doesn't just replace the {'Iv} but changes the word order altogether.
No, you're not getting that there are _two different rules_ in operation here.
From http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-12-12b-news.txt: [Question words (in this case, nuq "what?") function the same way pronouns do in questions with "to be" in the English translations. Thus, the question yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel the statement yIH 'oH "It is a tribble" (where yIH is "tribble" and 'oH is "it"). The answer to the question yIH nuq? ("What is a tribble?") would presumably be a definition or description of a tribble.]
When {'Iv} is used as a pronoun in a question with "to be" in the English translation, the expected answer to a question like {SoH 'Iv} is a definition or description of {SoH} "you". You're trying to invent a rule that allows you to put the question word either at the front or back of a question, when in fact there are two _different_ rules for asking (subtly) different types of questions. {'Iv ghaH} - the expected answer to this is a sentence of the form {X ghaH}, e.g., {Duy ghaH}. {ghaH 'Iv} - the expected answer to this is a definition or description of "him". {Duy ghaH} is an acceptable answer, but you might also answer {qepvammo' DIvI'vaD SutlhmeH naDev ngeHpu' DIvI'} or something that describes the person. I suspect in practice the questions are really interchangeable and the explanation in TKD 6.4 isn't so strictly followed when the pronoun is {jIH}, {SoH}, etc. (i.e., a pronoun that requires a change in the answer).
This whole matter resembles quick sand ; the more I try to understand, the deeper I get..
What _practical_ thing are you actually confused about? Is there something you want to say but don't know how? -- De'vID
De'vID :
Question words (in this case, nuq "what?") function the same way pronouns do in questions with "to be" in the English translations.
This means that the {'Iv} and {nuq} don't mean just "who" or "what", but their actual meaning is "who is" and "what is" ? De'vID :
Thus, the question yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel the statement yIH 'oH "It is a tribble" (where yIH is "tribble" and 'oH is "it"). The answer to the question yIH nuq? ("What is a tribble?") would presumably be a definition or description of a tribble.]
1. I can't understand this sentence : "Thus, the question yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel the statement yIH 'oH "It is a tribble". 2. {yIH nuq} and {nuq yIH} are the same, and they mean "what is a tribble" right ? 3. How do I ask "who is a/the tribble?" De'vID :
{'Iv ghaH} - the expected answer to this is a sentence of the form {X ghaH}, e.g., {Duy ghaH}. {ghaH 'Iv} - the expected answer to this is a definition or description of "him". {Duy ghaH} is an acceptable answer, but you might also answer {qepvammo' DIvI'vaD SutlhmeH naDev ngeHpu' DIvI'} or something that describes the person.
1. So, {'Iv ghaH} and {ghaH 'Iv} are the same, and they mean "what is he" ? But then why don't we use {nuq} ? 2. If I want to ask "who is he", do I use {'Iv ghaH}, {ghaH 'Iv}, or can I use both ? This is by far the single most confusing part of klingon I have encountered, from the first day I started studying it. On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:13 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23 June 2016 at 11:49, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DevID:
the answer to {'Iv SoH} should take the form {X SoH} (and not {X jIH}). {SoH 'Iv} avoids this problem.
I can't understand this. Why when someone asks me {'Iv SoH}, I can't reply saying {mayqel jIH}, and be consistent with the TKD ?
I would be placing the answer {mayqel} at the place of the {'Iv} and I would have replaced -necessarily- the {SoH}, with {jIH}. Is this replacement, the point you're trying to make ?
TKD 6.4 says: [For {'Iv} "who?" and {nuq} "what?" the question word fits into the sentence in the position that would be occupied by the answer.]
Strictly speaking, if you want to be some kind of TKD-literalist, to form the answer to a question with {'Iv} or {nuq}, you take the question and just replace the question word with the answer.
Obviously, if I ask you {'Iv SoH}, the correct answer isn't {mayqel SoH}.
Do you mean, that by using {SoH 'Iv} and replying {mayqel jIH}, the replacement matter is overcome, because the answer doesn't just replace the {'Iv} of the {'Iv SoH} (if we had used it), but employs a different word order altogether ?
It employs a different _rule_ altogether.
But if that's the case, then the {SoH 'Iv}, not only it doesn't address any matter at all, but it contradicts the rule that "the {'Iv} takes the place of the answer in a sentence", since the answer {mayqel jIH}, doesn't just replace the {'Iv} but changes the word order altogether.
No, you're not getting that there are _two different rules_ in operation here.
From http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-12-12b-news.txt: [Question words (in this case, nuq "what?") function the same way pronouns do in questions with "to be" in the English translations. Thus, the question yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel the statement yIH 'oH "It is a tribble" (where yIH is "tribble" and 'oH is "it"). The answer to the question yIH nuq? ("What is a tribble?") would presumably be a definition or description of a tribble.]
When {'Iv} is used as a pronoun in a question with "to be" in the English translation, the expected answer to a question like {SoH 'Iv} is a definition or description of {SoH} "you".
You're trying to invent a rule that allows you to put the question word either at the front or back of a question, when in fact there are two _different_ rules for asking (subtly) different types of questions.
{'Iv ghaH} - the expected answer to this is a sentence of the form {X ghaH}, e.g., {Duy ghaH}. {ghaH 'Iv} - the expected answer to this is a definition or description of "him". {Duy ghaH} is an acceptable answer, but you might also answer {qepvammo' DIvI'vaD SutlhmeH naDev ngeHpu' DIvI'} or something that describes the person.
I suspect in practice the questions are really interchangeable and the explanation in TKD 6.4 isn't so strictly followed when the pronoun is {jIH}, {SoH}, etc. (i.e., a pronoun that requires a change in the answer).
This whole matter resembles quick sand ; the more I try to understand, the deeper I get..
What _practical_ thing are you actually confused about? Is there something you want to say but don't know how?
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 23 June 2016 at 12:45, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID :
Question words (in this case, nuq "what?") function the same way pronouns do in questions with "to be" in the English translations.
This snippet is actually from Okrand. When you're quoting, please keep the attribution straight so people don't get confused.
This means that the {'Iv} and {nuq} don't mean just "who" or "what", but their actual meaning is "who is" and "what is" ?
In the specific context of using them as "pronouns", yes. This is the same as how {ghaH} means "he/she is" in such constructions.
De'vID :
Thus, the question yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel the statement yIH 'oH "It is a tribble" (where yIH is "tribble" and 'oH is "it"). The answer to the question yIH nuq? ("What is a tribble?") would presumably be a definition or description of a tribble.]
Again, this is Okrand, not me.
1. I can't understand this sentence : "Thus, the question yIH nuq? "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel the statement yIH 'oH "It is a tribble".
{nuq} is a pronoun. {'oH} is a pronoun. Both sentences are of the form {yIH [pronoun]}. What is confusing about this?
2. {yIH nuq} and {nuq yIH} are the same, and they mean "what is a tribble" right ?
{yIH nuq} means "what is a tribble?" {nuq yIH} is presumably clipped for {nuq 'oH yIH'e'}, which is literally "a tribble is what?" But that's just how this type of question is formed: by replacing the answer with {nuq}. In any language, there are multiple ways to construct a sentence or question with the same meaning. Why is this troublesome to you?
3. How do I ask "who is a/the tribble?"
A tribble is not a person. What exactly do you want to ask? If there were a number of changelings one of whom is in the shape of a tribble, and for some reason I wanted someone to identify the tribble, I'd ask {yIH yIngu'}. http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-12-12b-news.txt [This being the case, then, the answer to the question jarlIj qaq nuq? ("What is your preferable month?") would presumably be a definition of "your favorite month." But this is not what you want to find out by asking your question. What you really mean to ask is something like "Of all the months, which one do you prefer?"] I suggest you read the entirety of that post.
De'vID :
{'Iv ghaH} - the expected answer to this is a sentence of the form {X ghaH}, e.g., {Duy ghaH}. {ghaH 'Iv} - the expected answer to this is a definition or description of "him". {Duy ghaH} is an acceptable answer, but you might also answer {qepvammo' DIvI'vaD SutlhmeH naDev ngeHpu' DIvI'} or something that describes the person.
1. So, {'Iv ghaH} and {ghaH 'Iv} are the same, and they mean "what is he" ? But then why don't we use {nuq} ?
It's the same difference as between "who is he?" and "what is he?" in English. You _can_ ask {nuq ghaH} or {ghaH nuq}, but then you're asking something different.
2. If I want to ask "who is he", do I use {'Iv ghaH}, {ghaH 'Iv}, or can I use both ?
What, actually, is the meaning you intend to express? In the most general instance of just wanting to know who someone is, either one is fine. If you're asking to identify someone (out of a line-up or something), the right construction to use is actually something with {ngu'}. {'Iv ghaH} restricts the answer to {X ghaH}, going strictly by TKD (and, as I've said, TKD is only a grammatical sketch and in real use I doubt Klingon is actually as strict as that). {ghaH 'Iv} does not. Unless you're writing poetry or a grammar textbook, this subtle difference between the two doesn't matter to you. Also, {'Iv ghaH} is from TKD, whereas {ghaH 'Iv} is only allowed by grammar introduced by Okrand later. So if you want to communicate with people who have only TKD without confusing them, {'Iv ghaH} may be preferable.
This is by far the single most confusing part of klingon I have encountered, from the first day I started studying it.
You're making it more confusing than it has to be. There are some confusing areas of Klingon grammar, but question words isn't really one of them. -- De'vID
On 6/23/2016 6:13 AM, De'vID wrote:
I suspect in practice the questions are really interchangeable and the explanation in TKD 6.4 isn't so strictly followed when the pronoun is {jIH}, {SoH}, etc. (i.e., a pronoun that requires a change in the answer).
I think this is pretty obvious. The bit about question words being replaced by the answer noun obviously doesn't apply when the answer changes grammatical person. It was only an illustration by Okrand for how question words work, and wasn't meant to be followed slavishly. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, thanks On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/23/2016 6:13 AM, De'vID wrote:
I suspect in practice the questions are really interchangeable and the explanation in TKD 6.4 isn't so strictly followed when the pronoun is {jIH}, {SoH}, etc. (i.e., a pronoun that requires a change in the answer).
I think this is pretty obvious. The bit about question words being replaced by the answer noun obviously doesn't apply when the answer changes grammatical person. It was only an illustration by Okrand for how question words work, and wasn't meant to be followed slavishly.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
The way I see it, to translate "I am John" you have to have three elements: I, John, and something that connects them. John is a noun. I is a verb/noun. jIH is the only way to translate "I" without a separate verb, so it is the subject AND verb, leaving "John" only one place to be: before jIH: John jIH. We already have {tlhIngan jIH, tlhIngan maH}, and this is no different. There's a logical distinction here, too, that English rarely makes outside of "Alice in Wonderland", namely that a person isn't his name. Lojban requires this distinction, but elsewhere it's rare. So saying "I am [name]" ([pong] jIH) is kind of odd, even if it's the normal way of saying what one's name is. lay'tel SIvten On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:54 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no problem in saying {mayqel jIH} "I am Michael" Next, {SoH 'Iv} equals to {'Iv SoH}, both words can act as the verb.
ok, I came back..
if I write {'elaDya'ngan jIH}, this can only mean "I am (a) greek", right ? So, how come if I write {mayqel jIH}, this can mean "I am michael' ? even if we take into account, that klingon does not have "a/the", then again the meaning can only mean "I am a michael".
as I understand , the subject is defined as "one who is, or one who does" ; and since we use OVS, then how can we place the "one who is, or one who does", before the verb ?
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:22 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIHvaD Sujangta'mo', Satlho'. thank you all for replying.
qawHaqwIjDaq, 'oqranD mu'tlhegh ghom vIghItlhqa'. I re-wrote 'oqranD message at my data banks.
mIv Hurgh
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Other examples of "action” – which as SuStel pointed out is not the same as movement -- “in a direction away from the noun suffixed with {-vo’}":
naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'
I can't see well from here. CK
chaq SoHvo' vay' vIje' vIneH
[Maybe I'd like to buy something from you.] PK
betleHvo' qotar mInDu' mIghDaq boch 'otlh
Light reflects off the bat'leth into Fek'lhr's
evil eyes. PB [sic! for {veqlargh mInDu'}]
Another having to do with transmitting messages:
HoD, yo'SeH yaHnIvvo' potlh De' wIHevtaH
[Captain, we are receiving a priority message from
(Fleet) Operations Command.] (ST5 notes)
… and yet another from the very same “Message to Kronos”:
ghe'naQ Daqvo' QInvam wIlab.
We will place a homing device transmitting this
message at the site of the opera. ('U'-MTK)
{lab} “transmit data (away from a place)” already has an element of direction, but away from which place? {ghe’naQ Daqvo’} “from the site of the opera”. (Okrand chose to ignore the bit about placing a homing device; interested Klingons are perfectly capable of homing in on the signal without being prompted. Consider it translator’s license.)
--
Voragh
tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a'
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of SuStel Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:06 AM
On 6/21/2016 3:50 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
1. {tera'vo' SarI'} "I hail you from Earth".
The way I understand {-vo'}, it is used to denote "movement taking
place away from somewhere". However, in this sentence, the meaning is
rather "I'm at earth, and from here I'm communicating". Perhaps, one
could say that "the thing moving away from earth is the message". But
in that case, I would be expecting to see "from earth I'm sending this
message". Not "from earth I hail you".
"This suffix [-vo'] is similar to -Daq but is used only when action is in a direction away from the noun suffixed with -vo'."
It doesn't say there has to be literal movement, and it doesn't say the subject or object have to be moving away from something, just that the "action" is "in a direction away from." In Okrand's sentence, the action of hailing is being directed away from Earth.
There is a similar sentence in Conversational Klingon: pa'vo' pagh leghlu' the room has no view (literally, from the room, one sees nothing). The action of seeing is being directed away from the room.
Because irregularities like the aforementioned ones confuse me, I
chose to delete the "message from kronos", from my data banks.
Keep it. Aside from the rest of the good grammar, it's useful to keep examples of Okrand's mistakes, if only to convince Worshipers at the Almighty Knees of Okrand that his every utterance is not holy writ.
--
SuStel
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:05 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a logical distinction here, too, that English rarely makes outside of "Alice in Wonderland", namely that a person isn't his name. Lojban requires this distinction, but elsewhere it's rare. So saying "I am [name]" ([pong] jIH) is kind of odd, even if it's the normal way of saying what one's name is.
Early in my study of Klingon, I had the same objection. I preferred to interpret the verbal use of the pronoun {'oH} as "is a" or "is the", more of a categorizer than an indication of equality. I argued my point sincerely. I suggested that the correct way to identify oneself would be to say {pongwIj 'oH [pong]'e'}, and I fully intended to say it that way every time the opportunity occurred. And then I went to my first qep'a' and met other Klingonists. What was the VERY FIRST THING that came out of my mouth when I introduced myself? {ghunchu'wIy jIH}. [I hadn't quite had enough pronunciation practice.] It's just the natural way to do it, and it makes perfect sense if you consider that many people can have the same name. "I am a [name]." It works exactly like {tlhIngan jIH}. -- ghunchu'wI'
This always reminds me of Lewis Carroll's knight's song. yIqIm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haddocks%27_Eyes -- Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen :: author :: publisher :: psychologist :: hypnotist :: klingonist ::: Campbell Award nominee :::: Hugo Award nominee :::: Nebula Award nominee ::: www.lawrencemschoen.com ::: www.papergolem.com ::: www.hypnosis4writers.com
Bonus points to anyone who wants to argue the Use-Mention distinction in Klingon at qep'a'. -- Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen :: author :: publisher :: psychologist :: hypnotist :: klingonist ::: Campbell Award nominee :::: Hugo Award nominee :::: Nebula Award nominee ::: www.lawrencemschoen.com ::: www.papergolem.com ::: www.hypnosis4writers.com
participants (12)
-
Alan Anderson -
André Müller -
Christa Hansberry -
De'vID -
Felix Malmenbeck -
kechpaja＠comcast.net -
Lawrence M. Schoen -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
MorphemeAddict -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel