Maybe if you provided an actual example instead of inventing a grammatical template out of proprietary terms like “meHed noun”, there would have been less misinterpretation and need for explanation. This isn’t Klingon. It’s meta-Klingon.

On Oct 31, 2021, at 10:02 PM, janSIy . <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:

 If you read "meH'ed noun" as representing a "verb with -meH preceding a noun that it is modifying", then the verb before it could represent the main verb of the sentence. In other words, I suspect he meant, what you would have preferred to be written as: adverb - verbbogh 'ej verbbogh noun - verb - verbmeH'ed noun

From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2021 6:21 PM To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {ghIq} {ngugh} and time adverbs with time stamps

On Sat, 2021-10-30 at 22:59 +0300, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

...

jIH:

...

adverb - verbbogh 'ej verbbogh noun - verb - meH'ed noun

Constructions as {qeqmeH taj}, {QongmeH Duj}, {narghmeH nab}, etc, are obviously able to come at the end of the sentence, and it is these kind of constructions which I was describing by saying {meH'ed noun}.

I misread the initial "adverb" as "verb", and understood that to be the main verb, with the {verb-meH noun} at the end being a misplaced purpose clause. I take responsibility for, and apologize for, that mistake. However, taking that last bit as the kind of construction you explained your intent to be, then I don't see a main verb at all. It's not a sentence. If you intended it to be one, then that's the real error. If it was just meant as a prelude to the remainder of a sentence, any reanalysis I might do would likely fail because of missing context.

-- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

It was just a suggestion, not a calling out. I saw a message, a response to the message, an explanation of the original message, and an apology for the misunderstanding in the original response, and an explanation following the apology of the … And I thought I had a suggestion for what might have originally been better communication. It was only a suggestion. It’s certainly not a rule, nor in any way intended to be a harsh critique.

On Nov 1, 2021, at 11:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

charghwI':

...

Maybe if you provided an actual example instead of inventing a grammatical template out of proprietary terms like “meHed noun”, there would have been less misinterpretation and need for explanation. This isn’t Klingon. It’s meta-Klingon.

Let me ask you something; how many times in the past haven't we used in this list the "proprietary terms" of {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed nouns? Why did you feel the need to react *now*?

-- 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

ghunchu'wI', I suggest you read this mail *very* carefully until the end, because at the end there's a wonderful, truly wonderful surprise.. jIH:

Let me ask you something; how many times in the past haven't we used in this list the "proprietary terms" of {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed nouns? ghunchu'wI': How many times? We haven't used those terms essentially *every* time. Simplifying to get rid of the odd negation, we have never used those terms. I found exactly one older example of someone saying "-meH'ed the wrong verb" and two of "-bogh'ed verb" in the list archives. Both of them are explicitly referring to verbs, not nouns. There are also mentions of things like "Type 5'd nouns", but those are talking about syntactic marker suffixes which *do* go on nouns.

Are you sure about that? Wanna bet? http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2017-July/004633.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2017-August/005108.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2017-October/006390.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2017-December/006903.htm... http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2018-March/007675.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2018-May/007870.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2019-May/011234.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2019-May/011456.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-January/014179.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-May/014918.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-July/015202.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-November/016154.htm... http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2021-January/016457.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2021-April/017001.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2021-June/017444.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2021-August/017889.html All of the above are the initial posts of threads where the term {-meH}'ed nouns is used. Perhaps I can't count so well, but I think that the number of the above threads is more than 0. But I know what you'll say.. You'll say that in all those threads, it was me the one who was mainly using this term. Yeah, so? Why didn't then anyone object? Why didn't then someone say "hey, don't use that term, it's wrong"? I'll tell you why no one objected, ghunchu'wI'. Or better yet, let voragh tell you. On January 21 2016, I had sent a mail to this list, with the title "why klingon is perfect". On that thread voragh quoted Qov, then he quoted me, and then he wrote something which you should read, ghunchu'wI'.. ***** thread excerpt starts ***** Qov :

...

There is one use of {-meH} that isn't completely covered in TKD. As well as marking an entire clause that precedes the main clause and states the purpose of the main clause, a verb with {-meH} can mark just a noun, and give the purpose of that noun.

Cpt qunnoq:

vIparHa' ! vIparHa'qu' ! I like this ! I like this a lot !

yabwIjDaq {-'e'} mollu'DI' wIja'chuqnISbej.. as soon as the {-'e'} sinks in my mind, we definitely need to discuss this..[]

Until then, here are some known examples - a few used in sentences - of what some call "{-meH}ed nouns" to ponder... QongmeH Duj sleeper ship [...] ngongmeH Duj [experimental ship, prototype vessel] S33 [...] qa'meH vIttlhegh replacement proverb [...] chenmoHlu'meH Daq construction site KBoP ***** thread excerpt ends ***** What did voragh say, ghunchu'wI'? He said "of what some call "{-meH}ed nouns". voragh, ghunchu'wI'; voragh.. Not me.. voragh. Then, on January 27 2016, I sent a letter to this list with the title of "{-meH}ed nouns", where I started by writing "I'm not labeling this as KLBC, since this is a continuation of a previous mail, in which the subject of {-meH}ed nouns came up". And this the earliest mail I've found, where I used the term {meH}'ed nouns. No one ever complained because voragh, by writing "of what some call '{-meH}ed nouns'", revealed that this term was already in use before I started using it myself. And even if there *was* a mail dating before voragh's post where I wrote "{-meH}ed nouns", then again this wouldn't change anything because voragh wrote "of what some call"; plural. Sadly the relevant threads aren't in the archives. The archives listed here: "https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2015/index.php" end on October 2015, and the archives listed here: "http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/" start on June 2016. But if anyone falls so despicably low as to even suggest that I made this up, then lieven can create a page at the wiki, and I'll upload there the relevant pdf's. So, ghunchu'wI', next time check your sources better. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

ghunchu'wI':

The message at the given link does not include a reference to a "{meH}ed noun". I took the time to search the links' followup messages for such a reference. When I found the text "{meH}ed noun", the person who wrote it turns out to have been *you*.

Didn't I say that already? I wrote:

You'll say that in all those threads, it was me the one who was mainly using this term

So read more carefully.. You'll save yourself the embarassment. And I will say it again: Before I ever started using the term {-meH}'ed noun, voragh wrote:

Until then, here are some known examples - a few used in sentences - of what some call "{-meH}ed nouns" to ponder...

Voragh wrote "of what some call". Some=many people=plural. And I wrote the title of that thread in my previous post, providing even the exact date of the thread in question. So now I won't advise you again to check your sources better; I'll ask that when you reply to any of my posts you read more carefully. I *proved* that that term was in use long before I started using it. So either provide an argument against what voragh wrote, and prove it, or stay silent. This isn't facebook where you can play god closing threads, and muting people whenever someone challenges you or your buddies. Here people can actually reply, either you like it or not. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 16:13, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 11/1/2021 10:11 AM, Will Martin wrote:

...

Maybe if you provided an actual example instead of inventing a grammatical template out of proprietary terms like “meHed noun”, there would have been less misinterpretation and need for explanation. This isn’t Klingon. It’s meta-Klingon.

I had no trouble at all understanding what "meH'ed noun" meant. What else COULD it mean? I'd say the same thing myself if I had need of it.

FWIW, I had no problem understanding the meaning right away, but I can also see how it might not be obvious to others without prior explanation. -- De'vID