Expressing "all of us"
Sometime ago, I had asked of a way to say "all of us", as if in "all of us like cats". In particular, I had asked if we could write {vIghro' DImuSHa' Hoch}. And as we had said back then, we can't say something like this because it would violate the accord rule. maj. However, I just had an idea, which I would like to discuss. Why not write: {vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch} ? all of us love cats Does it violate any rule ? I think it is correct and grammatical. Let alone that we could place an {-'e'} on the {Hoch} for added emphasis, thus writing {vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch'e'}. Anyway, if anyone believes it is wrong, then do tell me before I start using it. Because qeylIS knows, I will be using as if there's no tomorrow.. ~ nI'ghma
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 4:14 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Sometime ago, I had asked of a way to say "all of us", as if in "all of us like cats".
In particular, I had asked if we could write {vIghro' DImuSHa' Hoch}. And as we had said back then, we can't say something like this because it would violate the accord rule.
maj.
However, I just had an idea, which I would like to discuss.
Why not write:
{vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch} ? all of us love cats
Does it violate any rule ? I think it is correct and grammatical. Let alone that we could place an {-'e'} on the {Hoch} for added emphasis, thus writing {vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch'e'}.
I think there's a few instances of "all of us" in paq'batlh that were just translated as {maH} or some first-person-plural prefix, so you could probably get away with just {maH}. But if it's important to convey the specific notion of "all of us", then {maH Hoch} "the entirety of us" is probably an acceptable way to express that basic idea. If {maH Hoch} works, then {Hochmaj} might be even better. That said, as you've got it written, it still violates the rule of accord. The subject is {Hoch}, not {maH}, so you'd still use a third-person-subject prefix. {vIghro'mey muSHa' maH Hoch/Hochmaj}.
On 1/27/2018 7:37 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 4:14 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
Sometime ago, I had asked of a way to say "all of us", as if in "all of us like cats".
In particular, I had asked if we could write {vIghro' DImuSHa' Hoch}. And as we had said back then, we can't say something like this because it would violate the accord rule.
maj.
However, I just had an idea, which I would like to discuss.
Why not write:
{vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch} ? all of us love cats
Does it violate any rule ? I think it is correct and grammatical. Let alone that we could place an {-'e'} on the {Hoch} for added emphasis, thus writing {vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch'e'}.
The fierceness with which people desire a /y'all/ in Klingon horrifies me. This is no different. There is no fundamental need to express this with a built-in phrase.
I think there's a few instances of "all of us" in paq'batlh that were just translated as {maH} or some first-person-plural prefix, so you could probably get away with just {maH}.
Indeed, you /should/ use just *maH.* If there's any ambiguity about /who/ loves cats, you can list who you're talking about.
But if it's important to convey the specific notion of "all of us", then {maH Hoch} "the entirety of us" is probably an acceptable way to express that basic idea. If {maH Hoch} works, then {Hochmaj} might be even better.
/Assuming/ this were something we wanted to say, I would expect it to be *maH Hoch,* not *Hochmaj.* Consider what we discover in KGT with area phrases (like *jIH 'em */area behind me,/ not **'emwIj*).
That said, as you've got it written, it still violates the rule of accord. The subject is {Hoch}, not {maH}, so you'd still use a third-person-subject prefix. {vIghro'mey muSHa' maH Hoch/Hochmaj}.
Yes. The head noun of the noun-noun is *Hoch, *so the phrase is third-person. Kinda works against using this as a substitute for /we all./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The fierceness with which people desire a *y'all* in Klingon horrifies me. This is no different. There is no fundamental need to express this with a built-in phrase.
There is a "y'all". It's *tlhIH*. (Now, if someone wanted something for "all y'all"...) I disagree with the underlying idea here that not fundamentally needing a certain phrase or construction means it's not worth being ever used or discussed. It's true that in many cases, there will be no problems with translating "all of us" as just *maH*, since it's not usually necessary to emphasize the entirety of the group someone is speaking for. It's always wise for translators to consider that not every translation needs to convey every small detail or nuance of the original, which is why I pointed out that paq'batlh just uses *maH*. On the other hand, it's certainly possible that even after that consideration, someone will still want to emphasize the "all" in "all of us". Perhaps it's a rhetorical device, meant to contrast with a previous statement, or to use the uncommonness of the construction to evoke some feeling in the reader, or something else entirely. And assuming that someone wants to do that, what's the best way to go about it? (Of course, it's entirely possible that in the specific case of what mayqel wants to translate, there's no real rhetorical need to use anything more complicated than *maH*. But I'm considering the "all of us" question in the more general sense.)
*Assuming* this were something we wanted to say, I would expect it to be *maH Hoch,* not *Hochmaj.* Consider what we discover in KGT with area phrases (like *jIH 'em **area behind me,* not **'emwIj*).
Why would you expect *maH Hoch* based on that? I admit that *Hochmaj* looks unusual, but *Hoch* is a grammatical noun and can presumably take noun suffixes. (We know it can take *-Hom*.) The only situation we know of where the *maH X* phrasing is explicitly preferred to the *Xmaj* phrasing is with area nouns, and *Hoch* is not an area noun. (And some area nouns like *'ev*, *chan*, and *tIng* do take possessive suffixes, even in *ta' Hol*.)
Kinda works against using this as a substitute for *we all.*
Not really. It just means you have to put some thought into the rest of the sentence, instead of just directly substituting it for *maH*.
On 1/28/2018 1:09 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
The fierceness with which people desire a /y'all/ in Klingon horrifies me. This is no different. There is no fundamental need to express this with a built-in phrase.
There is a "y'all". It's *tlhIH*. (Now, if someone wanted something for "all y'all"...)
There is no /all/ implicit in *tlhIH.* It plural you, but not necessarily all of you.
I disagree with the underlying idea here that not fundamentally needing a certain phrase or construction means it's not worth being ever used or discussed.
Oh nonono, I never said that. I have no problem with discussing the issue or occasionally needing to make explicit how much of *maH* (or *tlhIH*) one is talking about; see my subsequent discussion of what it would look like if you used it. I object to the casual translation of English /we all/ (or /y'all/) with a set phrase everywhere it appears. This is what mayqel threatened to do, and I'm pretty sure he's planning on using it in lieu of /ever/ using a straight *maH.*
/Assuming/ this were something we wanted to say, I would expect it to be *maH Hoch,* not *Hochmaj.* Consider what we discover in KGT with area phrases (like *jIH 'em */area behind me,/ not **'emwIj*).
Why would you expect *maH Hoch* based on that? I admit that *Hochmaj* looks unusual, but *Hoch* is a grammatical noun and can presumably take noun suffixes. (We know it can take *-Hom*.) The only situation we know of where the *maH X* phrasing is explicitly preferred to the *Xmaj* phrasing is with area nouns, and *Hoch* is not an area noun. (And some area nouns like *'ev*, *chan*, and *tIng* do take possessive suffixes, even in *ta' Hol*.)
Because *maH Hoch* appears to derive its meaning from the genitive noun-noun construction, not from possession. I don't think the area nouns work with pronouns the way they do because they are an exception to the rule; I think they work that way because they use a more general genitive way than possession. *jIH 'em:* it's not /my area behind;/ it's /the area behind /narrowed down with /me/ as a descriptor. I don't possess the area. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
This is what mayqel threatened to do, and I'm pretty sure he's planning on using it in lieu of *ever* using a straight *maH.*
hahaha ! Actually I won't. The part where I said "I will be using it like there is no tomorrow", of my original message, meant: "I will be using it, if it is indeed correct". Since there are doubts however, I will not use it at all. I *will* be using though (as if there's no tomorrow..) Rhona's {Hoch maH}. Because as I understand there's no objection against the use of it. If there is though, then someone please do tell me, before I start using it. ~ nI'ghma On Jan 28, 2018 15:47, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/28/2018 1:09 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The fierceness with which people desire a *y'all* in Klingon horrifies me. This is no different. There is no fundamental need to express this with a built-in phrase.
There is a "y'all". It's *tlhIH*. (Now, if someone wanted something for "all y'all"...)
There is no *all* implicit in *tlhIH.* It plural you, but not necessarily all of you.
I disagree with the underlying idea here that not fundamentally needing a certain phrase or construction means it's not worth being ever used or discussed.
Oh nonono, I never said that. I have no problem with discussing the issue or occasionally needing to make explicit how much of *maH* (or *tlhIH*) one is talking about; see my subsequent discussion of what it would look like if you used it. I object to the casual translation of English *we all* (or *y'all*) with a set phrase everywhere it appears. This is what mayqel threatened to do, and I'm pretty sure he's planning on using it in lieu of *ever* using a straight *maH.*
*Assuming* this were something we wanted to say, I would expect it to be *maH Hoch,* not *Hochmaj.* Consider what we discover in KGT with area phrases (like *jIH 'em **area behind me,* not **'emwIj*). Why would you expect *maH Hoch* based on that? I admit that *Hochmaj* looks unusual, but *Hoch* is a grammatical noun and can presumably take noun suffixes. (We know it can take *-Hom*.) The only situation we know of where the *maH X* phrasing is explicitly preferred to the *Xmaj* phrasing is with area nouns, and *Hoch* is not an area noun. (And some area nouns like *'ev*, *chan*, and *tIng* do take possessive suffixes, even in *ta' Hol*.)
Because *maH Hoch* appears to derive its meaning from the genitive noun-noun construction, not from possession. I don't think the area nouns work with pronouns the way they do because they are an exception to the rule; I think they work that way because they use a more general genitive way than possession. *jIH 'em:* it's not *my area behind;* it's *the area behind *narrowed down with *me* as a descriptor. I don't possess the area.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/28/2018 9:08 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
This is what mayqel threatened to do, and I'm pretty sure he's planning on using it in lieu of /ever/ using a straight *maH.*
SuStel: * * hahaha ! Actually I won't. The part where I said "I will be using it like there is no tomorrow", of my original message, meant: "I will be using it, if it is indeed correct".
Since there are doubts however, I will not use it at all. I *will* be using though (as if there's no tomorrow..) Rhona's {Hoch maH}. Because as I understand there's no objection against the use of it.
If there is though, then someone please do tell me, before I start using it.
My objection is the same whichever phrase you use. As some people are fond of saying, Klingon is not a code for English (or Greek). You don't just translate individual phrases one-to-one and just plug them into a formula to make a sentence. English users casually toss out /we all/ and /you all/ (usually as /y'all/) when they mean just /we/ and /you (plural)./ And only when they're speaking certain dialects of English. If your sentence would make just as much sense without the /all,/ LEAVE IT OUT. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
My objection is the same whichever phrase you use.
I'm rather confused. Reading this thread, I understood the reasons which would raise objections with regards to the use of {maH Hoch}. And in particular, how the {maH Hoch} violates the accord rule. But I can't understand which rule is violated by {Hoch maH}. Is it ungrammatical or wrong ? And if yes, how ? Reading this thread, I can't understand how its use could be considered wrong. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not arguing just to argue. I sincerely can't understand how the {Hoch maH} could be considered wrong. ~ nI'ghma On Jan 28, 2018 16:21, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/28/2018 9:08 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
This is what mayqel threatened to do, and I'm pretty sure he's planning on using it in lieu of *ever* using a straight *maH.*
hahaha ! Actually I won't. The part where I said "I will be using it like there is no tomorrow", of my original message, meant: "I will be using it, if it is indeed correct".
Since there are doubts however, I will not use it at all. I *will* be using though (as if there's no tomorrow..) Rhona's {Hoch maH}. Because as I understand there's no objection against the use of it.
If there is though, then someone please do tell me, before I start using it.
My objection is the same whichever phrase you use. As some people are fond of saying, Klingon is not a code for English (or Greek). You don't just translate individual phrases one-to-one and just plug them into a formula to make a sentence. English users casually toss out *we all* and *you all* (usually as *y'all*) when they mean just *we* and *you (plural).* And only when they're speaking certain dialects of English.
If your sentence would make just as much sense without the *all,* LEAVE IT OUT.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/28/2018 9:51 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
My objection is the same whichever phrase you use.
I'm rather confused.
Reading this thread, I understood the reasons which would raise objections with regards to the use of {maH Hoch}. And in particular, how the {maH Hoch} violates the accord rule.
But I can't understand which rule is violated by {Hoch maH}. Is it ungrammatical or wrong ? And if yes, how ? Reading this thread, I can't understand how its use could be considered wrong.
Don't misunderstand me; I'm not arguing just to argue. I sincerely can't understand how the {Hoch maH} could be considered wrong.
Read my message again. My objection is not to whether *Hoch maH* or *maH Hoch* means "we all" or "all of us"; it's whether you can use such a phrase wherever a casual speaker of English would say "we all" or "all of us." In English, the phrase is often used with no distinction whatsoever from "we" or "us." When translating from English, if you're translating "we all" or "all of us" with no distinction from "we" or "us" to *Hoch maH *or *maH Hoch,* you've just run into my objection. You're just copying an English dialect, not speaking genuine Klingon. I don't know if you'll get the following, since you're not a native speaker, but I'll give it a shot. In every dialect of English I've ever heard that employs "we all", "you all," or "y'all" in this sense, there is a distinction of stress made between a throwaway phrase and an actual distinction of number. If one says "WE all," stressing the "we," then the "all" is just a dialectical affectation, and has no meaning in the sentence; you could just drop it. If one says "we ALL," stressing the "all," then the "all" is there to make clear that we are talking about ALL of us, not just some of us. The same obtains with "you all": "YOU all" and "y'all" have no actual "all" meaning; "you ALL" is making a distinction between all of you and only some of you. There are some dialects of English that have almost completely dropped "you," even singular "you," in favor of "y'all"; these mean both just "you" and "all of you, not some of you." But outside these dialects, this distinction is made with stress. As for what exactly *Hoch maH* and *maH Hoch* mean: it's not clear. *Hoch maH* might be as ungrammatical as /all of the usses./ Or it might mean exactly what you think it means. Since there is a noticeable lack of canonical examples combining any quantity noun with any pronoun, we can't predict what it means, if it means anything at all. Given this total lack of information, I have to advise emulating known canon rather than constructing a questionable phrase and using it constantly. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:47 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
There is no *all* implicit in *tlhIH.* It plural you, but not necessarily all of you.
In many places that use "y'all", it's just a pronoun for plural you, though it's clearly derived from "you all". This is where the "all y'all" construction comes in, to mean "all of you (plural)". Anyway, *DoS vIchIl*.
Because *maH Hoch* appears to derive its meaning from the genitive noun-noun construction, not from possession. I don't think the area nouns work with pronouns the way they do because they are an exception to the rule; I think they work that way because they use a more general genitive way than possession. *jIH 'em:* it's not *my area behind;* it's *the area behind *narrowed down with *me* as a descriptor. I don't possess the area.
But again, not all area nouns take a separate pronoun: *chanwIj *"east of me, my area-eastward" is a perfectly fine construction. So far, I found two things talking about the distinction between pronoun-noun and noun-suffix constructions: KGT (p. 24-25) says:
Using the possessive suffix construction when speaking *ta' Hol* will not lead to misunderstandings, but it will associate the speaker with the residents of Sakrej, which, depending on the political situation, may or may not be beneficial.
HolQeD 8:4 (p. 6-10) says
It is also possible (though the Sakrej folks tend not to do this) to use the full pronoun plus locative noun construction with the directional nouns: *jIH chan* "east of me" (literally <I area eastward>). There is a slight meaning difference between *jIH chan*, using the full pronoun, and *chanwIj*, using the possessive suffix, however. The construction with the full pronoun emphasize the pronoun (in this case "I," the speaker him-herself) as the reference point; the construction with the pronominal suffix is more neutral. Thus, *chanwIj* is <east of me, east of where I am, east of here> but *jIH chan* is <east of ME, to MY east>.
Both of these examples are about the locational and directional nouns, so they might not really apply here anyway. But they suggest that any non-stylistic distinction between the two forms isn't about the semantics of possessing an area, but an issue of emphasis. There are a few examples I've found where the possessive suffix is used in a similar sort of genitive fashion: *reH tay' ghot tuqDaj je* (the tribe is not possessed by the person in question, it's just the tribe associated with them). *QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj!* (you don't own your coordinates, you're just at them). *ghu'maj Dayajbe'law'* (Azetbur and the other Klingons don't own the situation, they're just experiencing it).
On 1/28/2018 6:30 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
HolQeD 8:4 (p. 6-10) says
It is also possible (though the Sakrej folks tend not to do this) to use the full pronoun plus locative noun construction with the directional nouns: *jIH chan* "east of me" (literally <I area eastward>). There is a slight meaning difference between *jIH chan*, using the full pronoun, and *chanwIj*, using the possessive suffix, however. The construction with the full pronoun emphasize the pronoun (in this case "I," the speaker him-herself) as the reference point; the construction with the pronominal suffix is more neutral. Thus, *chanwIj* is <east of me, east of where I am, east of here> but *jIH chan* is <east of ME, to MY east>.
Very good. I'd forgotten that bit from the /HolQeD/ article. Of course, this prompts the question of whether "area eastward" is somehow inherently different than "area above"... -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlhpu':
Sometime ago, I had asked of a way to say "all of us", as if in "all of us like cats".
(poD vay')
{vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch} ? all of us love cats
As others have pointed out, since the head of the phrase maH Hoch is still Hoch, it should condition third-person agreement. With that said, I think that it should not be maH Hoch as nIqolay suggests, but Hoch maH. Hoch thus acts as a normal quantifier for its nominal (in this case, pronominal) head. For instance, we know Hoch nuvpu' is "all of the people", and we also know from paq'batlh that Hoch negh is "all of the soldiers" (paq'raD 11.21), and it's only a very small step to go from these to Hoch maH, which should take first-person plural agreement. We don't have any canon examples, but I feel it's a natural extension of the properties of both Hoch and pronouns as outlined in TKD 5.1. I don't think it's the least bit unnatural to say, for instance, targh DIparHa' 'op maH 'ach vIghro' DIparHa' Hoch maH "some of us like targs, but all of us like cats". Whether we can leave out the free pronoun maH to give the same meaning is, of course, an entirely different kettle of qagh. Many pro-drop languages permit this: Georgian, Turkish, Finnish and Spanish, at least. But we can't in good conscience assume that Klingon also does this, not least because Klingon seems to be more rigid with its targets of agreement than many Earth languages are. jangpu' SuStel, jatlh:
The fierceness with which people desire a y'all in Klingon horrifies me. This is no different.
I disagree strongly. Not only are the conversational implicatures of speaking to a bunch of people versus speaking on behalf of a bunch of people quite different, but a vast array of human languages with rigidly defined number agreement are quite happy to allow plural pronouns of all sorts to be quantified. What's more, in Klingon there's nothing we know explicitly about either maH or Hoch that should in principle get in the way of our using them together should the situation call for it. The only problem we have is that we just don't have an explicit canon example illustrating how or whether Klingon quantifies pronouns, though I believe we have enough information about both quantifiers and free pronouns to be able to extrapolate (in the absence of a contradictory formal rule, at least). Also, no less a speaker than Seqram consciously lampshaded the "all of us" question at the end of his article about Hoch more than two decades ago (HolQeD 5:2.11), so with all due respect (and I do have much respect for you), maybe ease up a bit on being horrified. QeS 'utlh
participants (4)
-
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Rhona Fenwick -
SuStel