I can't understand why the {-lIvIS} is illegal. Can't I be doing something, while something is proceeding towards a known goal or stopping point ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
TKD 43: This suffix [{-vIS}] is always used along with the Type 7 suffix {-taH} “continuous". Just consider it one of Okrand’s “just because” rules. We could argue the whys and wherefores to death – and we often do! – but, in the end, we just have to accept it and move on. In fact, I could only find only one example of {-vIS} and {-lI’} even occurring in the same sentence, albeit on different verbs: ghobe' ! qarbejbogh DoDvam qontaH 'u' jevqu'taHvIS muD ral, bejlI' parmaq. Oh, no ! It [love] is an ever-fixed mark. That looks on tempests and is never shaken. (Sonnet 116) --Voragh On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS I can't understand why the {-lIvIS} is illegal. Can't I be doing something, while something is proceeding towards a known goal or stopping point ?
indeed.. while I was writing this, I knew that it would come down to "because maltz said so". but I just can't see the logic of this rule. qunnoH jan puqloD SuvwI'pu'qoq Hol tughojmoHta'mo' Satlho' On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
TKD 43: This suffix [{-vIS}] is always used along with the Type 7 suffix {-taH} “continuous".
Just consider it one of Okrand’s “just because” rules. We could argue the whys and wherefores to death – and we often do! – but, in the end, we just have to accept it and move on.
In fact, I could only find only one example of {-vIS} and {-lI’} even occurring in the same sentence, albeit on different verbs:
ghobe' ! qarbejbogh DoDvam qontaH 'u'
jevqu'taHvIS muD ral, bejlI' parmaq.
Oh, no ! It [love] is an ever-fixed mark.
That looks on tempests and is never shaken. (Sonnet 116)
--Voragh
On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS
I can't understand why the {-lIvIS} is illegal. Can't I be doing something, while something is proceeding towards a known goal or stopping point ?
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:50 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
indeed..
while I was writing this, I knew that it would come down to "because maltz said so". but I just can't see the logic of this rule.
In-universe, this rule is descriptive, and might be stated this way because of an oversight (that the 23rd century linguist, who also happens to be named Marc Okrand, either knows that {-lI'} is occasionally used with {-vIS}, but forgot to mention it, or he hadn't listened to enough Klingon to discover this exception). Alternatively, the 23rd century linguist might be stating the rule precisely as he means to, but without further explanation that he could give, perhaps that he has discovered that Klingons' use of {-taHvIS} is so ingrained that saying *{-lI'vIS} seems wrong to them, and perhaps they won't even tolerate an intervening {-neS} or rover. ~mIp'av
mIp'av:
they won't even tolerate an intervening {-neS} or rover.
I hadn't thought of that ! however, as far as the rovers are concerned, I wouldn't mind as much placing them after the {-vIS}. but as you cleverly pointed out, there is a problem with the placement of {-neS}. If I want to say "while you were doing me the honor of being present", then is the {bISaHtaHneSvIS} correct ? qunnoH jan puqloD SuvwI'pu'qoq Hol tughojmoHta'mo' Satlho' On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:50 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
indeed..
while I was writing this, I knew that it would come down to "because maltz said so". but I just can't see the logic of this rule.
In-universe, this rule is descriptive, and might be stated this way because of an oversight (that the 23rd century linguist, who also happens to be named Marc Okrand, either knows that {-lI'} is occasionally used with {-vIS}, but forgot to mention it, or he hadn't listened to enough Klingon to discover this exception). Alternatively, the 23rd century linguist might be stating the rule precisely as he means to, but without further explanation that he could give, perhaps that he has discovered that Klingons' use of {-taHvIS} is so ingrained that saying *{-lI'vIS} seems wrong to them, and perhaps they won't even tolerate an intervening {-neS} or rover.
~mIp'av
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
but as you cleverly pointed out, there is a problem with the placement of {-neS}. If I want to say "while you were doing me the honor of being present", then is the {bISaHtaHneSvIS} correct ?
There's no rule against it. I was just supposing. But I'm pretty sure there is no canon example of any suffix occurring between {-taH} and {-vIS}. I can only speak for myself, but I expect for most {-neS} would seem like a weird interruption, and if {-neS} were called for, would add it to the main clause instead. (As for rovers, does anyone even have a definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would have following {-taH}?) ~mIp'av
mIp'av:
As for rovers, does anyone even have a definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would have following {-taH} ?
lets write an example.. {jIvumtaH} "I am continuously working". {jIvumtaHqu'} "I am very much continuously working". I would understand this as someone trying to emphasize the "continuously", though I can't say that in my mind there is much difference between the {-taH} and the {-taHqu'}. after all there are 24 hours in the day, right ? If someone says "I am working continuously", then the maximum I can understand is those 24 hours. I don't see how the {-qu'}, can add more to this. {jIvumtaHbe'} "I am not continuously working". I think this does make sense, and its ok to use it. now, if your original question was with regards to rovers being placed after the {-taH} in the {-taHvIS}, then I think that the resulting sentence wouldn't make sense. "while I am very much continuously working", "while I am not continuously working". I don't know.. I just can't *feel* what exactly these sentence could mean, or in which situations they would be appropriate. let alone the fact, that if we were to apply a rover in the aforementioned manner, then why place it right after the {-taH}, and not after the {-taHvIS} ? the way I understand it, practically, the {-vIS} and {-taHvIS} are essentially the same. so, if we were to apply a rover, we could place it right after the {-taHvIS}, thus avoiding splitting them up, since they always seem to like so much each other. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 23 Dec 2016 3:07 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
but as you cleverly pointed out, there is a problem with the placement of {-neS}. If I want to say "while you were doing me the honor of being present", then is the {bISaHtaHneSvIS} correct ?
There's no rule against it. I was just supposing. But I'm pretty sure there is no canon example of any suffix occurring between {-taH} and {-vIS}. I can only speak for myself, but I expect for most {-neS} would seem like a weird interruption, and if {-neS} were called for, would add it to the main clause instead. (As for rovers, does anyone even have a definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would have following {-taH}?)
~mIp'av
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
According to HetaQ, Krankor asked Okrand at qep'a' loSDIch whether{ -be'} could be inserted between {-taH} and {-vIS} for a suffix combination {-taHbe'vIS} (meaning something like “while discontinuously”). The answer was: "That's an interesting question." Examples of {-taHbe’}: tay'taHbe' 'Iw bIQ je Blood and water don't mix. TKW moratlh DaH bIHaw'laHtaHbe' puj 'uSDu'lIj [translation not available] PB qepHomDaq jIHtaHbe'. Saghal. (MO qepHom 2013 untranslated greetings) Examples of {-taH} and {-be’} on different verbs in the same sentence: QaptaHvIS So'wI' QaplaHbe' nuHmey weapons cannot be discharged while the cloak is in operation. S33 bIyIntaH 'e' Daqotlhbe' [You don't deserve to live (i.e. keep on living).] PK --Voragh On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS mIp'av:
As for rovers, does anyone even have a definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would have following {-taH} ?
lets write an example.. {jIvumtaH} "I am continuously working". {jIvumtaHqu'} "I am very much continuously working". I would understand this as someone trying to emphasize the "continuously", though I can't say that in my mind there is much difference between the {-taH} and the {-taHqu'}. after all there are 24 hours in the day, right ? If someone says "I am working continuously", then the maximum I can understand is those 24 hours. I don't see how the {-qu'}, can add more to this. {jIvumtaHbe'} "I am not continuously working". I think this does make sense, and its ok to use it. now, if your original question was with regards to rovers being placed after the {-taH} in the {-taHvIS}, then I think that the resulting sentence wouldn't make sense. "while I am very much continuously working", "while I am not continuously working". I don't know.. I just can't *feel* what exactly these sentence could mean, or in which situations they would be appropriate. let alone the fact, that if we were to apply a rover in the aforementioned manner, then why place it right after the {-taH}, and not after the {-taHvIS} ? the way I understand it, practically, the {-vIS} and {-taHvIS} are essentially the same. so, if we were to apply a rover, we could place it right after the {-taHvIS}, thus avoiding splitting them up, since they always seem to like so much each other. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 23 Dec 2016 3:07 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com<mailto:bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: but as you cleverly pointed out, there is a problem with the placement of {-neS}. If I want to say "while you were doing me the honor of being present", then is the {bISaHtaHneSvIS} correct ? There's no rule against it. I was just supposing. But I'm pretty sure there is no canon example of any suffix occurring between {-taH} and {-vIS}. I can only speak for myself, but I expect for most {-neS} would seem like a weird interruption, and if {-neS} were called for, would add it to the main clause instead. (As for rovers, does anyone even have a definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would have following {-taH}?) ~mIp'av _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/23/2016 8:53 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
mIp'av:
As for rovers, does anyone even have a definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would have following {-taH} ?
lets write an example..
{jIvumtaH} "I am continuously working".
{jIvumtaHqu'} "I am very much continuously working". I would understand this as someone trying to emphasize the "continuously", though I can't say that in my mind there is much difference between the {-taH} and the {-taHqu'}. after all there are 24 hours in the day, right ? If someone says "I am working continuously", then the maximum I can understand is those 24 hours. I don't see how the {-qu'}, can add more to this.
At qep'a' wejDIch a bunch of people were playing a song-naming game, and they'd been playing it for a long time. Others of us were wondering why they didn't come join us in speaking Klingon. I walked up to them and said: *SubomlI'be'. SubomtaHqu'.*
{jIvumtaHbe'} "I am not continuously working". I think this does make sense, and its ok to use it.
Absolutely. Furthermore, we've seen a number of examples in which the *-be'* suffix seems to have a larger scope than just the immediately preceding element. So *jIvumtaHbe'* might mean /I am not continuously working/ *(**jI-vum-[taH-be']**)* but it also might mean /I am not working continuously/*([jI-vum-taH]-be').*
now, if your original question was with regards to rovers being placed after the {-taH} in the {-taHvIS}, then I think that the resulting sentence wouldn't make sense.
I can see the problem. **jIvumtaHqu'vIS* /while I am CONTINUOUSLY working/—as opposed to what? All /while/s in Klingon are continuous. **jIvumtaHbe'vIS*/while I am not-continuously working/—except all /whiles/ in Klingon are continuous. I have no problem with *-neS,* though, if you really want to put it there. **jIvumtaHneSvIS*/while, sir, I am working./ I agree, however, with the opinion that you're more likely to put the *-neS* on the main clause, not on the dependent clause. I suppose you could be thoroughly obsequious and say **jIvumtaHneSvIS HuchwIj DaHIjneS'a'*///would you please deliver my money while I am working, sir?/ (That's a very loose translation.) I imagine there are cultural reasons you wouldn't do this, but I don't claim this as evidence against the practice. Ultimately, I think *-taH* and *-vIS* remain separate suffixes; there is no suffix **-taHvIS,* and there's no evidence of movement toward there being one. *-taH* is simply a requirement of using *-vIS,* and I /think/ that the *-taH* must be unmodified by rovers to make sense. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Ed Bailey -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel