{'e' qa'} "instead of" with the {qa'} bearing suffixes
Suppose I write: {pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap} if we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win Would this be correct/acceptable? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
I won’t presume that this is not some new thing that canon suggests as correct, but as a person who attended qep’a’ wa’DIch and has worked with the language for many years, I find your suggestion very confusing because: 1. Making the second sentence of a Sentence As Object construction a dependent clause is uncommon, surfing the edge of complexity limits of the language. Add anything else in terms of complexity and communication might suffer. 2. Preceding the Sentence As Object construction with a sentence that represents the subject of the second sentence of the Sentence As Object construction is probably a bridge too far. 3. Item 2 comes dangerously close to attempting a *Sentence As Subject* construction, which Klingon doesn’t have. 4. This comes really close to the Irrealis, which is problematic in Klingon. You are apparently trying to say, “If we WOULD replace swords with phasers, then we WOULD succeed.” Klingon doesn’t do “would”. Meanwhile, you aren’t expressing anything that isn’t more simply stated as: yan yIbuS! pu’ DIwIvchugh, maQap! Or: yan yIbuS! pu’ DImaSchugh, maQap! I honestly think you are trying to map too many distant grammatical connections together. Odds are high that your reader will not follow your thread. The character of Klingon as a language is more direct, more brutal, and not so logically extended as you are trying to make it. That’s not to invalidate other opinions. I’m just explaining how this example strikes me. If your whole point is to figure out how to use {qa’}, perhaps: maQapmeH yan qa’nIS pu’.
On Nov 18, 2021, at 7:51 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Suppose I write:
{pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap} if we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win
Would this be correct/acceptable?
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/18/2021 8:32 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I won’t presume that this is not some new thing that canon suggests as correct,
You should have presumed that, because that's what it is. http://klingon.wiki/En/Instead Canonical examples: *'awje' vItlhutlh; HIq vItlhutlh 'e' qa' */I drink root beer instead of liquor./ *jIQam; jIba' 'e' qa' */I stand instead of sitting./ The *'e',* and the second verb if a repeat, are often dropped in everyday speech. You'd be likely to hear these as: *'awje' vItlhutlh; HIq 'e' qa' 'awje' vItlhutlh; HIq qa' jIQam; jIba' qa' *
1. Making the second sentence of a Sentence As Object construction a dependent clause is uncommon, surfing the edge of complexity limits of the language. Add anything else in terms of complexity and communication might suffer.
I agree that turning an entire sentence-as-object construction into a subordinate clause heads toward too much complexity, but given the relative simplicity of the rest of it, I don't think this reaches the limit. *pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap.*/ If we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win./ If the sentence-as-object construction were any more complicated, it would probably be too much for me to accept it stylistically. But I have no problem with this one. //
4. This comes really close to the Irrealis, which is problematic in Klingon. You are apparently trying to say, “If we WOULD replace swords with phasers, then we WOULD succeed.” Klingon doesn’t do “would”.
This isn't that kind of irrealis; this is a simple conditional. As far as irrealis is concerned, this is no different than *bIjatlhHa'chugh, qaHoH*/If you say the wrong thing, I will kill you./ But Klingon /does/ do irrealis, using a special construction for counterfactuals: http://klingon.wiki/Word/Jal#More_Information It is illustrated with a canonical example: *tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh, qagh DatIv */If you were a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh./ The difference between a conditional and a counterfactual is canonically illustrated thus: Conditional: *qaghwIj DaSopchugh, qaHoH */If you eat my gagh, I'll kill you./ Counterfactual: *qaghwIj DaSop net jalchugh, qaHoH */If you were eating my gagh, I would kill you./ Notice how the counterfactual is /not/ indicated morphologically in Klingon. It is expressed as a conditional sentence-as-object, plus an indicative sentence. Where English says /would verb,/ Klingon just says /verb./ The /would/ comes from the /if one imagines that./ The fact that a standard grammatical construction, the counterfactual, consists of a subordinate sentence as object also casts doubt on claims that subordinate sentences as object are too complex to sustain. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 11/18/2021 9:17 AM, SuStel wrote:
On 11/18/2021 8:32 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I won’t presume that this is not some new thing that canon suggests as correct,
You should have presumed that, because that's what it is.
Oh, I see I got confused by your multiple negatives. Don't presume that, because it's a new thing introduced in 2018.
http://klingon.wiki/En/Instead
Canonical examples:
*'awje' vItlhutlh; HIq vItlhutlh 'e' qa' */I drink root beer instead of liquor./
*jIQam; jIba' 'e' qa' */I stand instead of sitting./
I clearly can't English today. /I stand instead of sit./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:17, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I agree that turning an entire sentence-as-object construction into a subordinate clause heads toward too much complexity, but given the relative simplicity of the rest of it, I don't think this reaches the limit.
*pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap.* * If we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win.*
If the sentence-as-object construction were any more complicated, it would probably be too much for me to accept it stylistically. But I have no problem with this one.
While I had no problem understanding the intended meaning of the Klingon sentence, I wonder if the {-chugh} isn't attached to the wrong thing. The way it's written, it looks like "we use phasers" is a statement, not a conditional. Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}. I know that looks weird, but the grammar of {'e' qa'} is weird. -- De'vID
On 11/18/2021 10:04 AM, De'vID wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:17, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I agree that turning an entire sentence-as-object construction into a subordinate clause heads toward too much complexity, but given the relative simplicity of the rest of it, I don't think this reaches the limit.
*pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap.*/ If we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win./
If the sentence-as-object construction were any more complicated, it would probably be too much for me to accept it stylistically. But I have no problem with this one.
While I had no problem understanding the intended meaning of the Klingon sentence, I wonder if the {-chugh} isn't attached to the wrong thing. The way it's written, it looks like "we use phasers" is a statement, not a conditional.
Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}. I know that looks weird, but the grammar of {'e' qa'} is weird.
You're right! We mustn't think of *pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'* as a verbal phrase. Maybe this can be simplified using the common shortcuts like so: *pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; ***yan qa'. **/If we use phasers, we will succeed. It replaces swords. / I don't know whether this works in the more formal style, however. Tricky. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I agree that it’s tricky. The attempt to stretch the complexity of the construction hid the flaw in thinking through the expression. While I accept that this is canon, I remember the old days when marquS spoke about the reason that we can’t as a group invent new words because a newbie who bought TKD and the other official Klingon materials would have no way to know that {‘I’} meant “armpit” (which was later canonized, to the merriment of all). It’s gotten to the point that a Klingonist can’t rely solely on Simon & Schuster to give them everything they need to translate Klingon in either direction. There is no longer a publication that provides what we in the KLI have collected to be the materials needed to know the language. You now need TKD to provide The Constitution level explanation of the grammar, boQwI’ for the vocabulary, and access to sufficient canon to explain the use of {-moH} with two objects or the use of {qa’} as the second verb in SAO, which at its heart is a Sentence As Subject tagged on to a Sentence As Object. The use of the semicolon in the English translation makes it clear that this is more than a simple use of context to explain the subject of {qa’}. The sentence before the semicolon is the subject of {qa’}. But why limit that to {qa’}? It’s only a matter of time before a new TKD will need a section on SAS. And how many other new grammatical constructions will we get that could never be derived from TKD, while there will never be a third edition? wejpuH.
On Nov 18, 2021, at 10:21 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/18/2021 10:04 AM, De'vID wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:17, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote: I agree that turning an entire sentence-as-object construction into a subordinate clause heads toward too much complexity, but given the relative simplicity of the rest of it, I don't think this reaches the limit. pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap. If we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win.
If the sentence-as-object construction were any more complicated, it would probably be too much for me to accept it stylistically. But I have no problem with this one.
While I had no problem understanding the intended meaning of the Klingon sentence, I wonder if the {-chugh} isn't attached to the wrong thing. The way it's written, it looks like "we use phasers" is a statement, not a conditional.
Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}. I know that looks weird, but the grammar of {'e' qa'} is weird. You're right! We mustn't think of pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa' as a verbal phrase.
Maybe this can be simplified using the common shortcuts like so:
pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan qa'. If we use phasers, we will succeed. It replaces swords.
I don't know whether this works in the more formal style, however.
Tricky.
-- 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 11/18/2021 1:04 PM, Will Martin wrote:
You now need TKD to provide The Constitution level explanation of the grammar, boQwI’ for the vocabulary, and access to sufficient canon to explain the use of {-moH} with two objects or the use of {qa’} as the second verb in SAO, which at its heart is a Sentence As Subject tagged on to a Sentence As Object. The use of the semicolon in the English translation makes it clear that this is more than a simple use of context to explain the subject of {qa’}. The sentence before the semicolon is the subject of {qa’}.
But why limit that to {qa’}?
Because it was given to us as a way to say one specific thing, not as a general "sentence as subject" rule. It is specifically listed as an idiom — that is, as something whose meaning cannot be derived just from the words that make it up. This is not a slippery slope. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
De'vID:
Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}.
I'm afraid I can't understand this. The way I read it is "If we use phasers we'll win, instead of using swords". Shouldn't there be a {-chugh} on the {yan DIlo'} too? SuStel:
Maybe this can be simplified using the common shortcuts like so: pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan qa'. If we use phasers, we will succeed. It replaces swords. I don't know whether this works in the more formal style, however.
I can't understand this either. Could you please explain the reasons which make you have doubts as to whether this could work in the formal style? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 11/19/2021 6:54 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
De'vID:
Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}. I'm afraid I can't understand this. The way I read it is "If we use phasers we'll win, instead of using swords". Shouldn't there be a {-chugh} on the {yan DIlo'} too?
You're right: saying it De'vID's way seems to say we use phasers, and we'll win instead of using swords. I don't think either version works.
SuStel:
Maybe this can be simplified using the common shortcuts like so: pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan qa'. If we use phasers, we will succeed. It replaces swords. I don't know whether this works in the more formal style, however. I can't understand this either. Could you please explain the reasons which make you have doubts as to whether this could work in the formal style?
I misspoke a bit. The *yan qa'* version isn't the informal style; it's just the version /instead/-ing a noun instead of a sentence. But now I don't think this quite works either, for a reason similar to De'vID's. It seems to say /We win instead of swords, /whatever that means. I just don't see a good way of making an instead-construction conditional. We either need to break it into multiple sentences or get word from on high about how to do it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I suspect that the problem with all of these attempts is that you are all trying to expand upon an idiom that is essentially not grammatical. While you can explain the obvious Sentence As Subject as a not-slippery-slope idiom that can’t be generalized, you then proceed to use it with a conditional that isn’t part of the original idiom, which is essentially an attempt to generalize it to make it more useful than the restrictions of the original idiom. I suspect that is overly assumptive. It may very well be that the idiom only works in the simple format in which it was originally presented. Evidence for this is how three of you don’t seem to be able to agree on the right way to word this example . pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Nov 19, 2021, at 6:54 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}.
I'm afraid I can't understand this. The way I read it is "If we use phasers we'll win, instead of using swords". Shouldn't there be a {-chugh} on the {yan DIlo'} too?
SuStel:
Maybe this can be simplified using the common shortcuts like so: pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan qa'. If we use phasers, we will succeed. It replaces swords. I don't know whether this works in the more formal style, however.
I can't understand this either. Could you please explain the reasons which make you have doubts as to whether this could work in the formal style?
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/19/2021 9:34 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I suspect that the problem with all of these attempts is that you are all trying to expand upon an idiom that is essentially not grammatical. While you can explain the obvious Sentence As Subject as a not-slippery-slope idiom that can’t be generalized, you then proceed to use it with a conditional that isn’t part of the original idiom, which is essentially an attempt to generalize it to make it more useful than the restrictions of the original idiom.
No. The problem with this isn't the apparent sentence as subject. The problem with it is that the conditional applies to the hypothetical *pu' DIlo',* but in the proposed solution *pu' DIlo'* is stated as fact. And if you try to make *pu' DIlo'* conditional, you're trying to use a conditional as the first sentence of a sentence as object, something we don't think is correct. The fact that the *'e' qa'* construction seems to employ a sentence as subject is completely irrelevant to the issue we're seeing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 12:55, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}.
I'm afraid I can't understand this. The way I read it is "If we use phasers we'll win, instead of using swords". Shouldn't there be a {-chugh} on the {yan DIlo'} too?
If you add {-chugh} to {yan DIlo'}, then you're trying to use {'e'} to refer to a conditional (no longer a whole sentence, but a subordinate clause). You're basically trying to combine the following sentences: {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap} "if we use phasers, we'll win" {pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'} "we use phasers instead of swords" Your original proposal moved the {-chugh} to the {qa'}. I don't think that's right, because {pu' DIlo'} should be conditional. I proposed to leave the {-chugh} on {pu' DIlo'}, but as I noted, the result has weird grammar. I don't think it's right, either. -- De'vID
Since I'm a beginner I lack the knowledge to answer this question, but I was thinking on the possibility of making a whole sentence the object of *qa'*: *pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap. yan DIlo'chugh, maluj 'e' qa'* (*If we use phasers, we'll win. It replaces that if we use swords, we'll lose* or something like *Instead of losing if we use swords, we'll win if we use phasers) I suppose it's completely wrong, but I would like to know why in order to improve my understanding of the language :-) Thank you!
Keep in mind that there is no Klingon *Sentence As Subject* grammatical construction. We’ve argued about this for years, and it’s long established that sentences can be objects of other sentences, but not subjects of other sentences. There is only what has been given to us an idiomatic construction that appears to be *Sentence As Subject* using the one verb {qa’}. It apparently works like: [simple sentence]; [simple sentence] ‘e’ qa’. Okrand hasn’t tended to use semicolons before, so it should alert you to how special this is. That idiom we were given didn’t have {-chugh} on any of the verbs. You keep trying to add it. It’s probably a bad idea to add any dependent clauses to any part of this idiom, unless we get a canon example or an explanation that clears the way. Maybe this works, though I have my doubts, and nobody but Okrand can tell you, “Yes, this is how it works with {-chugh}. We went through this with Comparative instructions. Okrand, in that case, did expand on how complex [X Q law’ Y Q puS] could get, but we would not have been justified in assuming that this would be the case until Okrand opened the way.
On Nov 20, 2021, at 10:50 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
Since I'm a beginner I lack the knowledge to answer this question, but I was thinking on the possibility of making a whole sentence the object of *qa'*:
*pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap. yan DIlo'chugh, maluj 'e' qa'* (*If we use phasers, we'll win. It replaces that if we use swords, we'll lose* or something like *Instead of losing if we use swords, we'll win if we use phasers)
I suppose it's completely wrong, but I would like to know why in order to improve my understanding of the language :-) Thank you! _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 23:20, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
There is only what has been given to us an idiomatic construction that appears to be *Sentence As Subject* using the one verb {qa’}. It apparently works like:
[simple sentence]; [simple sentence] ‘e’ qa’.
While the examples used to illustrate the idiom used simple sentences, I don't see that it's necessarily restricted in that way. mayqel's original sentence which started this thread (*{pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}) had a simple sentence in both places. The problem with it wasn't that the two sentences taking part in the idiom were complex. The problem was that the {'e'} in {'e' qa'} can only refer back to a sentence, and adding {-chugh} turned {pu' DIlo'chugh} into a subordinate clause. For example, I doubt that anyone would fail to understand this sentence, despite the fact that both halves are complex: {jIQamtaHvIS jIHegh; jItortaHvIS jIyIn 'e' qa'} There's no problem here, because the replacement is happening between the independent clauses ({jIHegh} replaces {jIyIn}), which the subordinate clauses happen to modify. The trouble mayqel's sentence ran into was that it tried to replace a part of the subordinate clause. Okrand hasn’t tended to use semicolons before, so it should alert you to
how special this is.
Okrand has always tended to use semicolons to join two independent sentences (in Klingon) which are thematically related (and would be one sentence in English). For example, KGT has an entire section on "Similes" of the form {[be verb]; [noun] rur} meaning "as [be verb] as [noun]", e.g., {bIr; bortaS rur} "cold as revenge". What the semicolon alerts us to here is that {[sentence1]; [sentence2] 'e' qa'} would be one sentence in English: "[sentence1] instead of [sentence2]".
That idiom we were given didn’t have {-chugh} on any of the verbs. You keep trying to add it. It’s probably a bad idea to add any dependent clauses to any part of this idiom, unless we get a canon example or an explanation that clears the way.
That seems excessively conservative. The idiom we were given didn't have a lot of things on any of the verbs. Nothing was mentioned about any restrictions on the complexity of the sentence {'e'} can refer back to. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with using {-chugh} with {'e' qa'} if the {'e'} refers back to an entire sentence: {bIjatlhchu'chugh qanaD; bIjatlhHa'chugh qaHoH 'e' qa'} Maybe this works, though I have my doubts, and nobody but Okrand can tell
you, “Yes, this is how it works with {-chugh}.
We went through this with Comparative instructions. Okrand, in that case, did expand on how complex [X Q law’ Y Q puS] could get, but we would not have been justified in assuming that this would be the case until Okrand opened the way.
We did go through it with the comparative construction, but I think you're drawing the wrong lesson. In that construction, it was originally unspecified how complex the {X} and {Y} slots could get. The examples from TKD all had simple nouns. If someone were to say, the construction seems to be of the form {[simple noun] Q law' [simple noun] Q puS}, they would've been unjustifiably conservative. It turns out that basically any noun phrase is allowed in the "noun" slot. In the same way, I think any sentence can go into the "sentence" slots in the {'e' qa'} idiom - the key being that they must be sentences, not subordinate clauses. (Of course, there might be stylistic or comprehensibility considerations if the sentences are too complex, but that's not a problem with the grammar.) -- De'vID
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 16:50, <luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote:
Since I'm a beginner I lack the knowledge to answer this question, but I was thinking on the possibility of making a whole sentence the object of *qa'*:
*pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap. yan DIlo'chugh, maluj 'e' qa'* (*If we use phasers, we'll win. It replaces that if we use swords, we'll lose* or something like *Instead of losing if we use swords, we'll win if we use phasers)
I suppose it's completely wrong, but I would like to know why in order to improve my understanding of the language :-) Thank you!
I think the sentence is fine, but it doesn't have the same meaning as mayqel's original sentence. If you drop the subordinate clauses, you end up with: {maQap; maluj 'e' qa'} "we win instead of lose". So your sentence says, "we win (if we use phasers) instead of lose (if we use knives)". In your sentence, winning replaces losing. What mayqel wanted to express was phasers replacing knives. (Winning instead of losing is a consequence of phasers instead of knives, so probably in most situations your solution would be suitable, but maybe there are some cases where one really does want to state the replacement in the antecedent of the conditional instead of the consequent.) -- De'vID
Thank you, charghwI' and De'vID for your feedback! De'vID:
(Winning instead of losing is a consequence of phasers instead of knives, so probably in most situations your solution would be suitable, but maybe there are some cases where one really does want to state the replacement in the antecedent of the conditional instead of the consequent.)
Just a last idea: what about using *qa'* as a *normal* verb? I know this is not exactly the same as the idiom *'e' qa'*, but could something like this work?: *yan qa'chugh pu', maQap* (*If the phasers replace the swords, we'll win*). Could we even say something like: *pu'vaD yan DIqa'moHchugh, maQap* (*If we replace the swords with the phasers, we'll win*)?
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 21:38, <luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote:
Thank you, charghwI' and De'vID for your feedback!
De'vID:
(Winning instead of losing is a consequence of phasers instead of knives, so probably in most situations your solution would be suitable, but maybe there are some cases where one really does want to state the replacement in the antecedent of the conditional instead of the consequent.)
Just a last idea: what about using *qa'* as a *normal* verb? I know this is not exactly the same as the idiom *'e' qa'*, but could something like this work?: *yan qa'chugh pu', maQap* (*If the phasers replace the swords, we'll win*). Could we even say something like: *pu'vaD yan DIqa'moHchugh, maQap* (*If we replace the swords with the phasers, we'll win*)?
The sentence says nothing about *using* the phasers instead of knives, but it could work if the context is supplied, e.g., {nuH DIlo'bogh DIwivDI', pu'vaD yan DIqa'moHchugh, maQap} or something like that. -- De'vID
I believe that it was explained that for the normal use of the verb {qa’} the subject is the thing that replaces the object, not the person who causes one thing to replace another, so the examples given here are erroneous. Your original use, {yan qa’chugh pu’, maQap} is grammatically complete and correct. You can always add context. Say your group presented you with a plan to attack someone with swords, your suggestion would be a good response if you wanted them to use phasers instead of swords. You could also probably say {yanvaD pu’ DIqa’moHpu'} to mean “We replaced swords with phasers," based on {SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}, which is apparently the way to use {-moH} when added to a verb that has separate causer, subject-of-action-of-verb, object-of-action-of-verb. I may be corrected this point. It’s one of my weaker areas of Klingon grammar. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Nov 22, 2021, at 4:37 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 21:38, <luis.chaparro@web.de <mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de>> wrote: Thank you, charghwI' and De'vID for your feedback!
De'vID:
(Winning instead of losing is a consequence of phasers instead of knives, so probably in most situations your solution would be suitable, but maybe there are some cases where one really does want to state the replacement in the antecedent of the conditional instead of the consequent.)
Just a last idea: what about using *qa'* as a *normal* verb? I know this is not exactly the same as the idiom *'e' qa'*, but could something like this work?: *yan qa'chugh pu', maQap* (*If the phasers replace the swords, we'll win*). Could we even say something like: *pu'vaD yan DIqa'moHchugh, maQap* (*If we replace the swords with the phasers, we'll win*)?
The sentence says nothing about *using* the phasers instead of knives, but it could work if the context is supplied, e.g., {nuH DIlo'bogh DIwivDI', pu'vaD yan DIqa'moHchugh, maQap} or something like that.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 20:01, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I believe that it was explained that for the normal use of the verb {qa’} the subject is the thing that replaces the object, not the person who causes one thing to replace another, so the examples given here are erroneous.
That explanation applies to {qa'} without {-moH}. With {-moH}, the subject causes the replacement, the thing doing the replacing takes {-vaD}, and the thing which is replaced remains the object. The examples are correct.
Your original use, {yan qa’chugh pu’, maQap} is grammatically complete and correct. You can always add context. Say your group presented you with a plan to attack someone with swords, your suggestion would be a good response if you wanted them to use phasers instead of swords.
You could also probably say {yanvaD pu’ DIqa’moHpu'} to mean “We replaced swords with phasers," based on {SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}, which is apparently the way to use {-moH} when added to a verb that has separate causer, subject-of-action-of-verb, object-of-action-of-verb. I may be corrected this point. It’s one of my weaker areas of Klingon grammar.
You've reversed the thing being replaced and the thing doing the replacing. {yanvaD pu' DIqa'moHpu'} means "we have replaced phasers with swords". Look at the following parallel: {tlhIngan Hol Daghoj [SoH]} "you learn Klingon" {quHDaj qaw ghaH} "He (Worf) remembers his heritage" {yan qa' pu'} "phasers replace swords" Adding {-moH}: {SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} "I teach you Klingon" - the object remains {tlhIngan Hol}, the original subject of {ghoj} takes {-vaD} {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH [Ha'quj]} "[the sash] reminds him (Worf) of his heritage" - the object remains {quHDaj}, the original subject of {qaw} takes {-vaD} (example from SkyBox card 20) {pu'vaD yan DIqa'moH} "we replace swords with phasers" - the object remains {yan}, the original subject of {qa'} takes {-vaD} I think the way to think about it is that {-vaD} marks the thing that the subject of {verb-moH} causes to do {verb}. So if {pu'} was originally replacing something, then {pu'vaD ... DIqa'moH} means we cause {pu'} to replace something. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin