Beginner questions - SAO, SAS and pronouns
On 9/28/2020 6:44 AM, Luis Chaparro Caballero wrote:
1. I have always thought that SAOs work as a "two-sentence-construction" (TKD 6.2.5). But then, is there any difference between these two sentences? Does the punctuation make a difference in Klingon? paq Daje'pu' 'e' vISov. paq Daje'pu'. 'e' vISov.
/The Klingon Dictionary/ and subsequent sources do not specify any kind of punctuation requirements. They're entirely discretionary. These two sentences are effectively identical.
2. In this list I've also seen that when we use a period it's possible not to use "'e'": paq Daje'pu'. vISov. Without "'e'" it's actually ambiguous: "vISov" can refer to "paq" or to the whole sentence.
Ehhhh.... Technically, this may true, but it would be as awkward to say this as it is in English to say /You bought the book, I know it. /While *'e'* is indeed a pronoun, I think it's taking the "may drop a pronoun" rule a little too far. Its presence is essential.
So we can make it clear if we use pronouns, right?: paq Daje'pu'. 'oH vISov. (I know the book). paq Daje'pu'. 'e' vISov. (I know that you have bought the book).
I would probably assume that the *'oH* does refer to the book, as you suggest.
Pronouns help us to make it clear. But what if the sentence is not ambiguous? What would be the difference between the following three possibilities? bIlaDtaH 'e' vISov. bIlaDtaH. 'e' vISov. bIlaDtaH. vISov.
No difference between the first two because punctuation is not a "rule" in Klingon. The third is awkward as I explained above.
In TKD 5.1 we can read pronouns can be used for emphasis or added clarity. Maybe the difference between the last two sentences is only that "'e' vISov" is emphatic ("I know THAT")?
No, explicitly using *'e'* is standard; it doesn't add any kind of emphasis or clarity. This is a good reason to think it can't be dropped like other pronouns.
Anyway: What is the difference between using a pronoun for emphasis and using the topic marker "-'e'"?
When you explicitly use a pronoun, you're making it clear that that's the pronoun you have in mind, or you're speaking extra-clearly to make sure you've been heard. If I say *HoD Duj vIlegh*/I see the captain's ship/ and then follow it up with *vIghov,* am I saying I recognize the captain or the ship? I can clarify by explicitly using a pronoun: *ghaH vIghov*/I recognize him/her/ or *'oH vIghov*/I recognize it./ When you use *-'e',* you're giving the noun grammatical focus: you're giving it an exclusive status. This noun, and no other, is the one I'm talking about. *HoD'e' vIghom*/I meet the CAPTAIN (not someone else)./ Note that this is different than when you use *-'e'* as a topic marker in pronoun-as-to-be sentences. *nuch ghaH Sogh'e'*/The lieutenant is a coward./ When used here, the meaning of *-'e'* isn't exclusivity, it's topic: /As for the lieutenant, he is a coward./ The topic of the sentence is the lieutenant, and what do we want to say about the lieutenant? He or she is a coward.
3. And what if the first sentence is intended to be the subject of the second one? paq Daje'pu'. QaQ.
I would assume that the elided subject of *QaQ* is *paq.* You cannot have a sentence act as subject. This pair of sentences cannot mean /Your buying the book was good./ Another reason to think that you can't elide *'e'* as object.
4. And if a sentece is not ambiguous, and my assumption that pronouns can be used for emphasis is right, how can we get the meaning "THAT is good" (emphasis) if we have no pronoun that refers to a sentence and can be used as subject?: bIlaDtaH. QaQ. So maybe we need a noun with "-'e'"?: bIlaDtaH. QaQ ngoDvam'e'.
You're on the right track. I'd probably use *wanI'* for this: *bIlaDtaH. QaQ wanI'vam'e'.*/You are reading. THAT (and not something else) is good./ But these are definitely two separate sentences in Klingon.
5. Anyway, is this possibility right?: QaQ. paq Daje'pu'. (That's good. You have bought the book).
Not correct, for the reasons above. You don't want *QaQ* here, you want the exclamation *maj.* *maj! paq Daje'pu'.*/Good! You have bought the book./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
When you use -'e', you're giving the noun grammatical focus: you're giving it an exclusive status. This noun, and no other, is the one I'm talking about. HoD'e' vIghom I meet the CAPTAIN (not someone else).
{-'e'} lo'vam vIqeltaHvIS, reH jISIvchoH.. {HoD'e' vIghom} mu'tlhegh wIqel; {HoD'e'} jatlhtaHvIS nuv, vItlhnIS ghoghDaj ? vItlhchoHpu'bogh ghogh 'oS'a' je {-'e'} lo'vam ? ~ Qa'yIn
On 9/28/2020 9:31 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{HoD'e' vIghom} mu'tlhegh wIqel; {HoD'e'} jatlhtaHvIS nuv, vItlhnIS ghoghDaj ? vItlhchoHpu'bogh ghogh 'oS'a' je {-'e'} lo'vam ?
Qa'yIn is asking whether Klingons vocally stress *-'e'* when it's acting as focus. I don't think they need to: the *-'e'* itself is a sharp sound that draws attention. Example: Vixis in /Star Trek V:/ *'ach HoD, Hevetlh wIghoSchugh, veH tIn wI'el maH'e'.* /But Captain, that course will take us into the Barrier as well./ Vixis doesn't give particular stress to the *maH, *but her voice rises on the *'e'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I love this canon example because the Klingon is less ambiguous than its English translation. In English, “But Captain, that course will take us into the Barrier as well,” could either mean that it will take US there as well as someone else, or it could mean it will take us THERE, as well as other places. We need context to figure out which is the case. But in Klingon, {‘ach HoD, Hevetlh wIghoSchugh, veH tIn wI’el maH’e’} we have the first person plural subject indicated by the prefix {wI-}, with emphasis added by the explicit, uncommonly redundant pronoun {maH}, and just to make sure that the pronoun was noticed, it was marked with {-‘e’} so the Captain would recognize that the whole point of this sentence is to discuss something that WE are about to do. Not somebody else. WE. It makes sense to verbally emphasize the {-‘e’}, since it is basically the equivalent of spitting after saying the word {taHqeq}. It’s making sure that the listener knows that word was not just casually included as a side note. That word is doing jumping jacks, waving signal flags, firing off flares and screaming to be noticed as important. "Yo! The people heading into the Great Barrier right now? Those people are WE! WE are heading into the Great Barrier! You! Me! All the rest of the people on this ship. WE are heading into the Great Barrier. I’m not talking about anybody else, here. I’m talking about US! Got that?" All that in one syllable. Yes, Klingon can be remarkably concise. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Sep 28, 2020, at 10:16 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Example: Vixis in Star Trek V: 'ach HoD, Hevetlh wIghoSchugh, veH tIn wI'el maH'e'. But Captain, that course will take us into the Barrier as well. Vixis doesn't give particular stress to the maH, but her voice rises on the 'e'.
-- 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 9/28/2020 3:38 PM, Will Martin wrote:
But in Klingon, {‘ach HoD, Hevetlh wIghoSchugh, veH tIn wI’el maH’e’} we have the first person plural subject indicated by the prefix {wI-}, with emphasis added by the explicit, uncommonly redundant pronoun {maH}, and just to make sure that the pronoun was noticed, it was marked with {-‘e’}
Well, no. The *maH* is there strictly so that we can hang the *-'e'* on it. See, when we say that *-'e'* provides emphasis, what we really mean is that it provides a semantic meaning that doesn't exist without it: focus. *-'e'* on a subject or object means exclusivity. The *-'e'* is not just some vague sense of emphasis; it has a semantic meaning, just like *-Daq* has the semantic meaning of locative. *Duj* means /ship. /*DujDaq* means /in/on/at the ship./ *Duj'e'* means /the ship and not something else./ The *maH* is only there so that we can use *-'e'* on it to say /us and not someone else;/ it would be impossible to say that without using the pronoun.
It makes sense to verbally emphasize the {-‘e’}, since it is basically the equivalent of spitting after saying the word {taHqeq}. It’s making sure that the listener knows that word was not just casually included as a side note. That word is doing jumping jacks, waving signal flags, firing off flares and screaming to be noticed as important.
No, it's just the fact that in a noun, syllables that end in *qaghwI'* are stressed. The way Vixis says *maH'e',* with stress on the *-'e',* is just the natural way to say the word. She doesn't scream it. You also stress a word this way when the *-'e'* is playing the role of topic, without emphasis: *'entepray' 'oH DoS'e'*/As for the target, it is /Enterprise.
"Yo! The people heading into the Great Barrier right now? Those people are WE! WE are heading into the Great Barrier! You! Me! All the rest of the people on this ship. WE are heading into the Great Barrier. I’m not talking about anybody else, here. I’m talking about US! Got that?"
All that in one syllable. Yes, Klingon can be remarkably concise.
*bo'Dagh'a' Dalo'.* All the *-'e'* does is add "(not someone/something else)" to the meaning of the noun. This is a simple morpheme indicating grammatical focus. It just so happens that English does not have a morpheme that does the same thing. But you can approximate it by stressing the word instead. /But WE will enter the Barrier!/ In a sense, that's even more concise than the Klingon, as you haven't added any morphemes at all. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Luis Chaparro Caballero -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin