Computer-analyzing the 4 verb forms translating "wIlegh wIleghlu' nulegh nuleghlu'":- produces (1) wIlegh may mean: -- PP:we/[him|it] V:see :: we see him/it (2) wIleghlu' may mean:- - PP:we/[him|it] V:see VS5:indef_subject (3) nulegh may mean:- - PP:[he|it|they]/us V:see :: he/they see us (4) nuleghlu' may mean:- - PP:[he|it|they]/us V:see VS5:indef_subject and it would be expected that (4) means "one sees us" and that (2) contradicts itself about what the subject is. But TKD says as a special rule that (2) means "one sees us", "we are seen", and says nothing directly about (4). This reminds me of what happens in Celtic (where -r means "indefinite subject") compared to what happens in Latin (where "videmus" = "we see" and "videmur" means "we are seen".) In Latin, adding the "-r" makes the "-mus" change from specifying the one who sees to specifying the one who is seen, and that tense is called a passive, with "we" in subject position but meaning the one who is seen. This looks like that wIleghlu' is partly describable as a passive, making leghlu'wI' possible for "one who is seen". ----Original message----

From : sustel@trimboli.name Date : 18/02/2017 - 05:18 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject : Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat

I understand your interpretation perfectly well, thank you very much. I just think it's wrong. -wI' has the effect of nominalizing the verb into the subject of that verb. A vutwI' is the thing that performs vut, the subject of vut. If you were to say *vutlu'wI', you'd be trying to nominalize the verb into a nonexistent subject. No one in particular performs vutlu', so it makes no sense to talk about the noun that performs vutlu'. If *vutlu'wI' were to mean that which is cooked, you'd be nominalizing the verb into its object, which is not what -wI' does. There's a very strong reason to think that's what it means if you're thinking in English: English passive voice turns the thing acted upon into the subject. Soj vutlu' the food is cooked, so it would seem natural to say nominalizing that refers to the food. But it doesn't. English passive voice doesn't exist in Klingon; the active voice translation of Soj vutlu' is one cooks the food, and so we're nominalizing the verb into the cook. But that's no different than nominalizing straight vut, so the -lu' has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of -wI'. The two simply don't go together. As for a parallel with English -ee, remember that -wI' is equivalent to English -er, not -ee, and even in English you need a whole different suffix to nominalize to the object instead of the subject. The only way this could work would be if Okrand were to arbitrarily make up a new rule that says adding -wI' to a verb with -lu' changes the process to refer to the object of the verb instead of the subject. He hasn't said this, he hasn't done this, and there is no way to deduce that rule from existing rules. It only seems right because you're thinking in English passive voice.

ghItlhpu' Anthony, jatlh:

Computer-analyzing the 4 verb forms

translating "wIlegh wIleghlu' nulegh nuleghlu'":-

Relying on the raw output of a computer analysis is problematic at best. We already know that *{nuleghlu'} is (probably) not possible following TKD p. 38-39, which states explicitly that the pronominal prefixes used with {-lu'} are {vI-}, {Da-}, {wI-}, and {bo-}. when a first- or second-person object is meant. (poD poj) taH:

But TKD says as a special rule that (2) means "one sees us", "we are seen", and says nothing directly about (4).

Not quite. I think you would be well served to read TKD again on the topic. taH:

This reminds me of what happens in Celtic (where -r means "indefinite subject") compared to what happens in Latin (where "videmus" = "we see" and "videmur" means "we are seen".) In Latin, adding the "-r" makes the "-mus" change from specifying the one who sees to specifying the one who is seen, and that tense is called a passive, with "we" in subject position but meaning the one who is seen.

The difference is that the object of the Latin active verb is promoted to subject syntactically. Compare the following examples, where the active form has "boy" in the accusative case, and the passive has it in the nominative: /videt puerum/ "it sees the boy", but /puer vidētur/ "the boy is seen". In Klingon, by contrast, the object remains the object syntactically. In {to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh} "stuffed tobbaj legs", if {-lu'} were a genuine passive marker, we would expect *{lughoDlu'bogh to'baj 'uS} (since Klingon doesn't mark subject and object by morphology, but by syntax). But that's not what we see. Also, I think you're a little confused on the Celtic "indefinite subject", which doesn't relate to the Klingon construction at all. The indefinite subject in Celtic is entirely different, and is rather a means of marking nominal definiteness on the verb. It doesn't restrict the ability of a verb to *take* a syntactic subject (compare Welsh /mae ci mawr yn yr ardd/ "a big dog is in the garden", but /mae'r ci mawr yn yr ardd/ "the big dog is in the garden" - both would be equally rendered as {Du'HomDaq 'oHtaH Ha'DIbaH tIn'e'} in Klingon). taH:

This looks like that wIleghlu' is partly describable as a passive, making leghlu'wI' possible for "one who is seen".

You've still got a logical leap to address between "partly describable as a passive" and "exactly describable as a passive". Yes, the {-lu'} construction in Klingon shares with the English passive a reduction in focus on the subject. But plenty of other constructions are capable of reducing focus on the subject. The two don't behave the same syntactically and so you can't reduce {-lu'} to a true passive. I agree completely with SuStel. As they've been described to us in canon up to now, I don't believe {-lu'} and {-wI'} combine in a way that makes any grammatical sense. QeS 'utlh

jIghItlhpu' jIH, jIjatlhpu':

Also, I think you're a little confused on the Celtic "indefinite subject", which

doesn't relate to the Klingon construction at all.

mujangpu' Anthony, jatlh:

Sorry; by the impersonal / indefinite "r" I did not mean the Welsh for "the"

(y, yr, 'r)

Ah, my mistake. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'. Still, the Irish impersonal construction doesn't help matters because it's not a passive either. In the impersonal in Irish, we still see that the object is not promoted to subject position. In the impersonal /cailleadh iad/ "someone lost them; they died", for instance, it's the disjunctive, object form of the pronoun that's used - /iad/ - rather than the conjunctive, subject form /siad/ that would be expected if this were a genuine passive construction. It's a change in morphosyntactic orientation that makes a distinction one of voice, not simply one of morphology. QeS 'utlh

ghItlh SapIr: I suspect that part of the problem is that, for native speakers of English and most other European languages, the most natural place for the subject is before the verb. Thus, when we see *Soj vutlu'*, our instincts tell us that *Soj* is the subject, rather than an object in a sentence that doens't have an overt subject. I can't speak for others who have asked this question, but placement of the object had nothing to do with my question. I based my question solely from the perspective that the pronominal prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person subject are used with {-lu'}. My hope was that following that model, we could also allow {-wI'} to see the assumed object as the subject. There is a form of "promotion" of object to subject, though admittedly incomplete, especially since the explicit object placement does not change. I admit that I couldn't recall the results of previous discussions and so threw it in as an additional possability to be discussed for my purposes. I was not proposing it as my best suggestion and knew there was a good chance others would shoot it down. I accept their objections. Jeremy

ghItlh SapIr: I suspect that part of the problem is that, for native speakers of  English and most other European languages, the most natural place for the subject is before the verb. Thus, when we see *Soj vutlu'*, our instincts tell us that *Soj* is the subject, rather than an object in a sentence that doens't have an overt subject. ghItlh Jeremy (jIH): I can't speak for others who have asked this question, but placement of the object had nothing to do with my question.  I based my question solely from the perspective that the pronominal prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person subject are used with {-lu'}.  My hope was that following that model, we could also allow {-wI'} to see the assumed object as the subject. There is a form of "promotion" of object to subject, though admittedly incomplete, especially since the explicit object placement does not change. I admit that I couldn't recall the results of previous discussions and so threw it in as an additional possability to be discussed for my purposes.  I was not proposing it as my best suggestion and knew there was a good chance others would shoot it down.  I accept their objections. ghItlh SuStel: The exact sentence TKD uses to explain the indefinite subject prefixes is this: "Those prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person subject and third-person singular object (vI-, Da-, wI-, bo-) are used to indicate first- or second-person object." TKD is telling us that the object of a verb with -lu' remains an object with -lu' there. The prefixes are being reassigned; they no longer have their old roles when -lu' is used. There is no promotion of object to subject. DaH: Works for me. Just to be clear, I was not trying to defend my use of {-wI'} with {-lu'}. I was trying to defend the accusation that I had assumed the object could act like the subject because I'm used to the subject being before the verb. Your points are valid and I have not argued against any of them. In another situation I'm pretty sure I would have decried the use of {-wI'} with {-lu'}. But I really wanted to be wrong so I could streamline my translation just a tiny bit (because space and brevity is an issue in this project) and so suggested it to see what the consensus was. My intent was not to open an old wound, but just to be reminded what the scar looked like. Thank you for your input on {-wI'} with {-lu'}. I see that while posting this you have posted another reply, so I'll go see if you have addressed there the question of whether the thing being rendered is the subject or object of {'Im}? Jeremy

And similarly, in Latin, adding 'r' turns "videmus" = "we see" into "videmur" = "we are seen" by reassigning the "-mus" suffix to mean the one seen and not the one seeing. Klingon has no nominative/accusative case difference, so has a simpler scenario. ----Original message----

From : sustel@trimboli.name Date : 18/02/2017 - 14:57 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject : Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Rendered fat

The exact sentence TKD uses to explain the indefinite subject prefixes is this: "Those prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person subject and third-person singular object (vI-, Da-, wI-, bo-) are used to indicate first- or second-person object." TKD is telling us that the object of a verb with -lu' remains an object with -lu' there. The prefixes are being reassigned; they no longer have their old roles when -lu' is used. There is no promotion of object to subject. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 2/18/2017 8:19 AM, David Holt wrote:

On the other hand, I'm not sure it is so clear that {tlhagh} is the object of {'Im}. KGT says, "the general word for "boil" is {pub}, but the verb used specifically to refer to the boiling of fat is {'Im} ["render"]." However, I believe the only example we have of {pub} uses the thing being boiled as the subject ({pubtaHbogh ghargh HIq} from CK). Does {'Im} work like {pub} and the thing that is rendering should be the subject?

No, it's not completely clear whether*'Im tlhagh* or *tlhagh 'Im*, or both, are correct. (Even with an example of the subject of *pub* being the thing boiled, it's not certain that you can't *pub* something. Sometimes Klingon verbs go both ways. We actually have another example: *tujpa' qul pub SuvwI' 'Iw* /a warrior's blood boils before the fire is hot./) I don't think the contrast of *pub* and *'Im* in the text necessarily implies similarity in their transitivities. When we lack an example, we have to go by the English translation. *'Im* is /render, boil fat./ Now, it could just be saying that *'Im* is the type of boiling that happens to fat, but the English translation does choose to use /fat/ as its object. This puts me in favor of *tlhagh 'Im.* But if I saw *'Im tlhagh,* I'd understand where you're coming from. If I saw *'ImwI'* I'd be less comfortable, because I'd be imagining the cook doing the rendering, rather than the fat being rendered. Let me know when you figure out which way to interpret *tlhe'*... -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 2/18/2017 2:23 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

jatlh SuStel:

*-wI'* has the effect of nominalizing the verb into the subject of that verb. A *vutwI'* is the thing that performs *vut,* the subject of *vut.*

If you were to say **vutlu'wI',* you'd be trying to nominalize the verb into a nonexistent subject. No one in particular performs *vutlu',* so it makes no sense to talk about the noun that performs *vutlu'.*

As I said, I'd like to hear what MO has to say on the subject.

I'd like to hear what Okrand has to say on every subject we ever question. That's not an argument against what I said.

It's bound to be more nuanced, not to mention a lot less bombastic and opinionated.

Fuck you, asshole. Bombastic enough for you? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 2/18/2017 5:19 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:36 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

I'd like to hear what Okrand has to say on every subject we ever question. That's not an argument against what I said.

Make a list and come to the qep'a'! For the past few years he's done a Q&A session!

I likely can't get to the qep'a'. Has no one asked for answers to our perennial questions at these Q&A sessions? Type 5 noun suffixes in the middle of noun phrases? The transitivity of various verbs? The limits of nominalizing verbs? The placement of various elements in complex sentence-as-object constructions? Does he actually resolve these questions in Q&A sessions? If he does, GRILL HIM! >:-D -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 2/18/2017 5:56 PM, kechpaja wrote:

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 05:19:25PM -0500, qurgh lungqIj wrote:

...

Okay. Enough of this. If you want to insult each other take it off this list! qoj tlhIngan Hol yIlo'. mu'qaD QaQ law' je ghaj tlhInganpu'.

qen /Facebook/Daq muHoH /'arHa /'e' buQ 'ej tlhIngan Hol lo'pu'. Saghlaw'. mu'qaD veS vIQuj vIneHbe'. jItIchchugh jISagh. mu'wIj moHmo' ghomvaD jItlhIj. /mIp'av/vaD jItlhIjbe'; mu'vetlh qotlh ghaH. ghaH vIlughmoH neHbe'chugh, mujbe'nIS. vItIchqa'Qo', 'ach DaH Hoch pupbe'ghachDaj vIlughmoH; pung vIchIwQo'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

ghItlhpu' SuStel, jatlh:

-wI' has the effect of nominalizing the verb into the subject of that verb.

A vutwI' is the thing that performs vut, the subject of vut.

If you were to say *vutlu'wI', you'd be trying to nominalize the verb into a nonexistent subject. No one in particular performs vutlu', so it makes no sense to talk about the noun that performs vutlu'.

jang mIp'av:

As I said, I'd like to hear what MO has to say on the subject.

As would I. As would we all. taH:

It's bound to be more nuanced, not to mention a lot less bombastic and opinionated.

qaStaHvIS Hoch pemvam, De'wI'wIjDaq jIDachtaH, vaj ja'chuqtaHghachvam QeH'e' vIleghbe'pu', 'ach naDev bIwogh SoH'e' 'e' vIHar jIH, mIp'av. pab bopbogh vay' tlhoblu'bogh, wIjangmeH De' DISovbejbogh neH wIlo'laH. De' pegh wIwuvlaHbe'; maybe'. bIjatlhpu' SoH, mIp'av: "it's immediately obvious to some this combination nominalizes the same way as "-ee" in "employee"". qatlh? Qochba' SuStel, 'ej vuDlIj'e' moHtaH DIvI' Hol SovlIj 'e' Qub 'e' QIjchu' SuStel, 'ej QochmeH tlhIngan Hol De' neH lo'pu'. po' SuStel. tlhIngan Hol jatlh qaStaHvIS DISmey law'. pIj maQoch je jIH ghaH je, 'ach vuDDaj vIvuvtaH. naDev lughchu' ghaH 'e' vIQub jIH. vuDDaj DalajQo' DaneHchugh SoH'e', vaj yIruch, 'ach marq 'oqranDvo' vuD DaneH 'e' DajatlhDI' quSDaq bIba'. marqvo' tlhIngan Hol pab bopbogh Hoch'e' wIghoj wIneHba' net Sov. 'ach qaSpa', latlh nuq DaneH? vuDmeymaj neH DInoblaH. pojmeymaj DInoblaH. 'ej poj nIv Daghajchugh, vaj gho'ang. 'ach pojna' tu'lu'be'chugh - DIvI' Hol "-ee" 'oSlaHchu' {-lu'wI'} 'e' DaQubchugh - vaj yItob. SKI: Based on the facts we have about {-lu'} and {-wI'}, QeS feels on this one SuStel has it right, and thinks it's important for all to remember that the facts we have are, as always, all we have to go on. QeS 'utlh

QeS, bIQIj 'e' DaQoy DaneHmo', choquvmoH. vaj vuDwIj vIQIjmeH vIvum 'e' Daqotlhbej. wa'DIch jIQIjbe', pIj Sojvam ngachlu'pu'mo' 'ej Sojvam wuqlaHmo' marq 'oqranD neH. tagha' wuq marq 'oqranD 'e' vIjInqu', jIjatlhpu'. wuqchugh, ramchoH Hoch latlh vuD. jIQIjchoHpa', paghDIch mIw vIja'. taghwI' jIHtaHvIS, jIngongmeH jIngong vIneH. Dayaj'a'? wotDaq DIpDaq je mojaqmey vImutlh ngugh vIneH. naQjej rurmo' wot, ghantoH <chuH> vIlo'. vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej ?chuHlu'wI' 'e' SIbI' vItlhoj. lughqu'law', 'a wa'DIch DujwIj vIvoqmo' neH. meq vIngu'laHbe'pu'. vay' vIHaDnISbogh vItu'pu'. <yIvoq 'ach yI'ol>, qar'a'? cha' mojaqvam luDuDlu' 'e' tuch'a' TKD, ngugh 'e' vISIv. TKD 3.2.2 vIlaDpu'. wotDaq <-wI'> chellu'DI', DIp moj wot 'ej mu'tlheghDaq wotvam tlha'bogh DIp'e' 'oS DIpvam chu' 'e' QIj TKD. vaj chuHbogh vay' 'oS chuHwI'. Hoch QIjbe' TKD. DIp nap chenmoH wot <-wI'> je 'e' nughojmoH TKD, 'ach <-wI'> latlh mojaq je ghajchugh wot, qaSbogh wanI' 'angbe' TKD. 'a qay' <-lu'> neH 'e' wIloylaH. ghu' le' 'oHba' wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'>. nItebHa' qaSlaHbe' wot, <-lu'>, <-wI'> je lutob mu'mey'e' lo'pu'bogh marq 'oqranD net Qub. TKD 3.2.2 qontaHvIS, ghu'vam qelbe'taH 'e' vIQub. cha' meqmo' ghu' le' 'oH wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'>. wot tlhejtaHvIS <-lu'>, mu'tlheghDaq wotvam tlha'laH pagh DIp. meq wa'DIch'e' 'oH ngoDvam'e'. wot tlha'bogh DIpvaD per vIHutlh. naQjej rurmo' wot, DIpvamvaD <chuHwI' DIp> vIper. wot nungbogh DIpvaD <DoS DIp> vIper. wot tlhejtaHvIS <-lu'>, moHaq pIm poQ wotvam je. meq cha'DIch 'oH ngoDvam'e'. DoS DIpvaD chuHwI' DIp DamoH rom chut. So'bogh DoS DIp chu' jal rom chut je, vaj DoS DIpvam chu'vaD <ghaH> <'oH> ghap qellaH vay' 'e' ghet moHaq le' DIlo'bogh. 'a potlhbe', mu'tlheghDaq DI'rujDaq ghap DoS DIpqoqvam chu' tu'be'lu'mo'. wotvaD DoS DIp 'oHtaH nungbogh DIp'e'. moHaqvaD chuHwI' DIp mojlaw' nungbogh DIp. ghu'vam vIqelmeH DIvI' Hol qechmey /subject/ /object/ je, jImISqu'choH. 'ach vuDlIj QIjmeH /subject/ /object/ je wuv SuStel. rarchu'be' tlhIngan Hol, qechmeyvam je 'e' vIQub. ghu'vam le'mo', SuStel vuD vIHon. latlh meq vIghaj. 'oSlaHbe' wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je, 'eb lonlu'pu' 'ej pagh chavlu'. mu' chenmoHmeH mIw DuH lonlu'. vaj vay' chuHlu'bogh 'oSlaHbe' ?chuHlu'wI' 'ej cha' mu' DIlo'nIS. <vay' chuHlu'bogh> vIlo'laH, 'a jIHvaD <?chuHlu'wI'> 'IH law' <vay' chuHlu'bogh> 'IH puS, ngajmo' ?chuHlu'wI' 'ej nItebHa' chang'eng luchenmoHmo' chuHwI' ?chuHlu'wI' je. me'ghan poQ Hoch 'er'In. chaq Sov puS vIghaj 'ej chaq vulqangan meqmey rurbe' Hoch meqmeywIj. Sov law' ghajbej SuStel, 'a vulqangan meqmey lo'law' je. potlh Sov, 'a tlhIngan HolvaD muj vulqangan meqmey 'e' vIQub je. jagh QaHbe'nISlu' 'a vuDDaj meq qaq buSHa'law' SuStel. wot tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je ngaSbogh mu'tlhegh naDpu''a' marq 'oqranD? ghobe' vIQub. chaq not wuqnIS, pagh chaq tu'qomvam par, pagh chaq latlh meg ghaj. wa' 'eb jonmeH cha' 'eb lon neHbe' 'e' vItu'. Sojvam wuqchugh, latlh 'eb lon chaq 'e' jal. vuDwIjvaD meq yap vI'ang 'e' vItul. 'a ram vuDwIj, Qochchugh marq 'oqranD. 'e' vIlajchu'. ~mIp'av

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:30 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 2/20/2017 12:53 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:

QeS, bIQIj 'e' DaQoy DaneHmo', choquvmoH.

*Because you want to hear that you explain...* I think you meant *jIQIj.*

bIlugh. QaghwIj QIp Datu'pu'. pIj jIDachchoH.

vaj vuDwIj vIQIjmeH vIvum 'e' Daqotlhbej.

wa'DIch jIQIjbe', pIj Sojvam ngachlu'pu'mo' 'ej Sojvam wuqlaHmo' marq 'oqranD neH. tagha' wuq marq 'oqranD 'e' vIjInqu', jIjatlhpu'. wuqchugh, ramchoH Hoch latlh vuD.

jIQIjchoHpa', paghDIch mIw vIja'. taghwI' jIHtaHvIS, jIngongmeH jIngong vIneH. Dayaj'a'? wotDaq DIpDaq je mojaqmey vImutlh ngugh vIneH. naQjej rurmo' wot, ghantoH <chuH> vIlo'. vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej ?chuHlu'wI' 'e' SIbI' vItlhoj.

*vay'e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej *chuHlu'wI' SIbI' 'e' vItlhoj*

or

*SIbI' vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oHSbej *chuHlu'wI' 'e' vItlhoj*

<'e'> tlha'laH chuvmey 'e' vIQub. 'a jIQochbe', <'e'> nung chuvmey vImaS je.

lughqu'law', 'a wa'DIch DujwIj vIvoqmo' neH. meq vIngu'laHbe'pu'.

This is probably not a good place for *-pu'.* You're describing your state of mind at a particular time, not a completed event or state of mind. That state might be over now, but in the narrative, it isn't. It's just what your state was.

Guilty as charged. I was thinking of tense instead of aspect.

vay' vIHaDnISbogh vItu'pu'. <yIvoq 'ach yI'ol>, qar'a'?

cha' mojaqvam luDuDlu' 'e' tuch'a' TKD, ngugh 'e' vISIv. TKD 3.2.2 vIlaDpu'. wotDaq <-wI'> chellu'DI', DIp moj wot 'ej mu'tlheghDaq wotvam tlha'bogh DIp'e' 'oS DIpvam chu' 'e' QIj TKD. vaj chuHbogh vay' 'oS chuHwI'. Hoch QIjbe' TKD. DIp nap chenmoH wot <-wI'> je 'e' nughojmoH TKD, 'ach <-wI'> latlh mojaq je ghajchugh wot, qaSbogh wanI' 'angbe' TKD. 'a qay' <-lu'> neH 'e' wIloylaH. ghu' le' 'oHba' wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'>.

nItebHa' qaSlaHbe' wot, <-lu'>, <-wI'> je lutob mu'mey'e' lo'pu'bogh marq 'oqranD net Qub. TKD 3.2.2 qontaHvIS, ghu'vam qelbe'taH 'e' vIQub.

cha' meqmo' ghu' le' 'oH wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'>.

wot tlhejtaHvIS <-lu'>, mu'tlheghDaq wotvam tlha'laH pagh DIp. meq wa'DIch'e' 'oH ngoDvam'e'.

wot tlha'bogh DIpvaD per vIHutlh. naQjej rurmo' wot, DIpvamvaD <chuHwI' DIp> vIper. wot nungbogh DIpvaD <DoS DIp> vIper.

wot tlhejtaHvIS <-lu'>, moHaq pIm poQ wotvam je. meq cha'DIch 'oH ngoDvam'e'. DoS DIpvaD chuHwI' DIp DamoH rom chut.

In English passive voice, this is true. *-lu'* is not English passive voice. In Klingon, when *-lu'* is added, the object remains the object.

This is the language used to decribe what goes on in Klingon. My point is the construction i

So'bogh DoS DIp chu' jal rom chut je,

*The rule of accord envisions a new, hidden target noun*?

My language here is awkward. An example is called for. When {mulegh ghaH} is changed to {vIleghlu'}. The rule of accord requires the prefix {vI-}, so although semantically there is a null agent and first-person singular patient, grammatically the rule of accord treats this situation as if there were a first-person singular subject and third-person singular object, although that object is merely a grammatical fiction. This is clearly a special situation, and I have to wonder whether OVS accurately reflects how Klingon linguists would interpret it.

vaj DoS DIpvam chu'vaD <ghaH> <'oH> ghap qellaH vay' 'e' ghet moHaq le' DIlo'bogh.

*lughet*

bIlughbej.

'a potlhbe', mu'tlheghDaq DI'rujDaq ghap DoS DIpqoqvam chu' tu'be'lu'mo'. wotvaD DoS DIp 'oHtaH nungbogh DIp'e'. moHaqvaD chuHwI' DIp mojlaw' nungbogh DIp. ghu'vam vIqelmeH DIvI' Hol qechmey /subject/ /object/ je, jImISqu'choH. 'ach vuDlIj QIjmeH /subject/ /object/ je wuv SuStel. rarchu'be' tlhIngan Hol, qechmeyvam je 'e' vIQub.

ghu'vam le'mo', SuStel vuD vIHon. latlh meq vIghaj. 'oSlaHbe' wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je, 'eb lonlu'pu' 'ej pagh chavlu'.

Hoch 'eb jon Hol 'e' SaHbe' Hol.

'a chaq SaH tlhInganpu'. 'eb tu'DI', lulo' 'e' bot nuq? lubotlaHbe'ba' tera'ngan Holtej. 'a 'eb lulo' luneHbe' tlhIngan, SIghlaHbe' je tera'ngan Holtej. DaH jIyevnIS 'a jItaHqa'. SuStel, choQaHqangmo' choquvmoH. qaQeHmoHmo' jIQoS. jItlhIj 'e' DalajlaH'a'? ~mIp'av

Qu'wIjmo' jIyevnISpu' 'ej Do'Ha' qaSpu' jaj bID je jItaHqa'laHpa'. nI' QInmeymaj vaj loQ vImISchoH. jItaghqa'meH Daq vItu'. jIjatlh: jagh QaHbe'nISlu' 'a vuDDaj meq qaq buSHa'law' SuStel. jatlh SuStel: nuqjatlh? *SuStel seems to ignore his preferable opinion.* I should have said something like vuDDaj vuybogh meq qaq'e' buSHa'law' SuStel. And of course the preferable reason: wot tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je ngaSbogh mu'tlhegh naDpu''a' marq 'oqranD? In my opinion, the lack of canon -lu' plus -wI' is a stronger argument than your inference from the rules of TKD. MO can always refine the rules outlined in his "grammatical sketch," and he could easily say the wording in TKD 3.2.2 fails to take into account one special case, but if he were to start allowing -lu' plus -wI' at this point, some explanation for its apparent rarity is called for. On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:35 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 2/20/2017 11:03 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:

naQjej rurmo' wot, ghantoH <chuH> vIlo'. vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej

...

?chuHlu'wI' 'e' SIbI' vItlhoj.

*vay'e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej *chuHlu'wI' SIbI' 'e' vItlhoj*

or

*SIbI' vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oHSbej *chuHlu'wI' 'e' vItlhoj*

<'e'> tlha'laH chuvmey 'e' vIQub. 'a jIQochbe', <'e'> nung chuvmey vImaS je.

*'e'* lutlha'laHbe' chuv. chaq *TKD* 6.7 mojaq *-'e'* je DaqelHa'.

bIlughlaw'. vogh chuvmey nunglaH <'e'> vIlaDpu' qen 'e' vIQub, 'a DaH Daq'e' vIqawlaHbe'. 'a ghIH mIwvam. DoS DIp qa'meH, reH DoS DIp DaqDaq <'e'> lanlu'

In English passive voice, this is true. *-lu'* is not English passive voice. In Klingon, when *-lu'* is added, the object remains the object.

This is the language used to decribe what goes on in Klingon. My point is the construction i

Your sentence seems to have been cut off.

Oops! I think I was saying the language used in TKD attempts to describe Klingon grammar in terms familiar to the reader, but that Klingons do not necessarily conceive of their grammar in those terms. Therefore there is a danger of accepting TKD's explanations too literally, and based on that, forcing an interpretation of Klingon grammar that Klingons would rightly consider alien. We know the grammatical forms (at least some of them) and the semantic relations (for instance, we know the different semantic roles of the arguments of a verb, one of these being that a noun following a verb is always an agent). But the familiar grammatical terms in TKD, to paraphrase Spock in "Errand of Mercy," could well be conventionalizations. Useless to the Klingons. Used by MO so that language students, such as ourselves, could have conventional points of reference.

The language used to describe what goes on in Klingon is "someone/something does something to me" and "someone/something does something to them," and so on. Only after giving examples in most combinations does TKD say "Verbs with *-lu'* are often translated into the English passive voice." It then gives the SAME examples translated into passive voice. The point is clearly not that what's happening in Klingon is grammatically equivalent to English passive voice; it simply means that passive voice is often a more colloquial translation. It sounds stilted to say "someone/something remembers you"; it sounds natural to say "you are remembered."

...

So'bogh DoS DIp chu' jal rom chut je,

*The rule of accord envisions a new, hidden target noun*?

My language here is awkward. An example is called for. When {mulegh ghaH} is changed to {vIleghlu'}. The rule of accord requires the prefix {vI-}, so although semantically there is a null agent and first-person singular patient, grammatically the rule of accord treats this situation as if there were a first-person singular subject and third-person singular object, although that object is merely a grammatical fiction. This is clearly a special situation, and I have to wonder whether OVS accurately reflects how Klingon linguists would interpret it.

*mulegh ghaH* is not changed to *vIleghlu'.* You construct *vIleghlu'* directly. There is no transformation from one to another. When I am thinking in Klingon and I intend to use an indefinite subject, my mind goes straight to *vI-* being the proper prefix.

The *vI-* prefix does not, according to the description in TKD, treat *vIleghlu'* as if it had a first-person singular subject and a third-person singular object. TKD explicitly says the prefixes are used to mean something else. With *-lu',* *vI-* MEANS first-person object. There's no grammatical fiction going on; the prefixes are simply reassigned for *-lu'.*

Now, is it possible that there is some "grammatical fiction" reason WHY the prefixes are reassigned? Maybe, but that's pure conjecture and there's no evidence for it anywhere.

I wasn't implying that vIleghlu' was a form of mulegh ghaH, but rather considering the effect on the prefix if the speaker rephrased the sentence to eliminate the explicit agent. It's impossible (for me, anyway) not to wonder how verbs with -lu' came to have the prefixes they do. I expect that, as with any language, that it's just natural and unquestioned for most native speakers but that it entered speech for a very definite reason that speakers didn't take for granted at the time. What that reason could be I won't even try to guess.

'a potlhbe', mu'tlheghDaq DI'rujDaq ghap DoS DIpqoqvam chu' tu'be'lu'mo'.

...

wotvaD DoS DIp 'oHtaH nungbogh DIp'e'. moHaqvaD chuHwI' DIp mojlaw' nungbogh DIp. ghu'vam vIqelmeH DIvI' Hol qechmey /subject/ /object/ je, jImISqu'choH. 'ach vuDlIj QIjmeH /subject/ /object/ je wuv SuStel. rarchu'be' tlhIngan Hol, qechmeyvam je 'e' vIQub.

ghu'vam le'mo', SuStel vuD vIHon. latlh meq vIghaj. 'oSlaHbe' wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je, 'eb lonlu'pu' 'ej pagh chavlu'.

Hoch 'eb jon Hol 'e' SaHbe' Hol.

'a chaq SaH tlhInganpu'. 'eb tu'DI', lulo' 'e' bot nuq? lubotlaHbe'ba' tera'ngan Holtej. 'a 'eb lulo' luneHbe' tlhIngan, SIghlaHbe' je tera'ngan Holtej.

Arguing over whether a Klingon would or would not care about a particular grammatical feature is not a useful line of reasoning, in my view.

No, but as any of us who've studied a natural language have observed (and it wouldn't surprise me if this applies to every subscriber on this list), native speakers are under no obligation to speak the language the way the student expects, no matter how good the student's reasoning. Our reasoning is ultimately of a kind with that of the toddler who says "goed" instead of "went." Some of my favorite moments in studying Klingon are Maltz's revelations that Klingons don't speak the language the way we'd expect. There's much to be said for your conservative approach, that it is less likely to generate Klingon expressions that no Klingon would accept than an approach that accepts any Klingon expression that canon doesn't expressly forbid. ~mIp'av

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:46 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 2/22/2017 1:39 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:

Qu'wIjmo' jIyevnISpu'

I'm not going to call this use of *-pu'* categorically wrong, but I suspect you're thinking of past tense instead of aspect here. Are you conceiving of a need to pause that came to an end, or are you just talking about a need to pause? Not that the pause eventually came to an end, which it obviously did since you're writing now, but that it came to an end in the circumstance you're describing with the word *yIyavnISpu'.*

I need to keep increasing my use of time stamps. *wa'Hu' Qu'wIjmo' jImevnIS* is more to the point.

'ej Do'Ha' qaSpu' jaj bID je jItaHqa'laHpa'.

Stylistic note: *jItaHqa'laHpa'** before I can resume enduring* seems circuitous. Enduring what? Answering *(**jIjangqa'laHpa')*? Writing (composing) *(jIqonqa'laHpa')*?

*taH* <continue, go, endure, survive> It only means continue in the general sense, as in *taH pagh taHbe'*? And I don't imply any object if I use a null-object prefix. Though you have a good point that *jIjangqa'laHpa'* is precise as to what activity I'm resuming, and as the saying goes, a Klingon may be inaccurate, but he is never imprecise.

nI' QInmeymaj

reH jISIv: nI' QIn pagh tIq QIn. mu'tlhegh lugh vISovbe'.

vaj loQ vImISchoH.

*jImISchoH*

moHaq luboplu'DI' jIyepnISqu'. pIj jIghItlhHa' ghIq mu'meywIj vIlaDHa'.

jItaghqa'meH Daq vItu'.

ghItlhmeH Daq DaSamnISpu'?

ghobe'. QInDaq jItaghqa'meH Daq vI'tu'pu'.

jIjatlh:

jagh QaHbe'nISlu' 'a vuDDaj meq qaq buSHa'law' SuStel.

jatlh SuStel:

nuqjatlh? *SuStel seems to ignore his preferable opinion.*

I should have said something like vuDDaj vuybogh meq qaq'e' buSHa'law' SuStel.

*vuy?* mu'vetlh vISovbe'.

mu' chu' 'oH: http://www.kli.org/about-klingon/new-klingon-words/v/ 'a vIlo'Ha'pu'. vIghItlhtaHvIS, jIjatlhnIS <vuDDajvaD vuybogh meq qaq'e' buSHa'law' SuStel>

And of course the preferable reason: wot tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je ngaSbogh mu'tlhegh naDpu''a' marq 'oqranD?

wa' naDpu'be' 'ej ghItlhpu'be'.

In my opinion, the lack of canon -lu' plus -wI' is a stronger argument than your inference from the rules of TKD. MO can always refine the rules outlined in his "grammatical sketch," and he could easily say the wording in TKD 3.2.2 fails to take into account one special case, but if he were to start allowing -lu' plus -wI' at this point, some explanation for its apparent rarity is called for.

If Okrand starts doing something, that takes priorty, obviously.

But a lack of evidence cannot reasonably be considered a stronger argument than drawing inferences from the rules. Okrand never says that Klingons don't add* wala wala bIng beng* to the end of encyclopedia entries written in Klingon; that doesn't mean we should advocate that in our own Klingon encyclopedia.

Haven't you got the Chipmunks reference reversed? I pointed out that the absence of *-lu'wI'* in canon argues against its use, rather than for it.

Your argument doesn't stem from lack of evidence anyway. It comes from analyzing the rules in TKD *as they are demonstrated in English translations*. You're taking the rule that *-wI'* turns the verb into its subject, thinking that the subject of *leghlu'* *it is seen* is *it,* and concluding that the *it,* *that which is seen*, is the result. But while the *it* is the subject in English, it is not in Klingon. The Klingon has no subject, and therefore nothing to turn into when a *-wI'* is added.

No, my argument that *-lu'wI'* might function as -ee in employee stems from the fact that if there's a *-lu'* on the verb, *-wI'* can't nominalize it as the subject, since there isn't any, so the next candidate is the object. Every example in TKD 3.2.2 uses *-wI'* on a bare stem, so of course it uses the translation <one who does> or <thing which does>, which implies subject. But is it phrased this way because *-wI'* can only nominalize as the subject (I hear your emphatic "YES!"), or simply because, at the time, Okrand hadn't considered the possibility of adding *-wI'* to a verb plus *-lu'*? Granted, he's had three decades to go into more detail on this, but you probably wouldn't disagree that he is loathe to paint himself into a corner. An additional point is that special prefixes are used for a verb plus *-lu'*. There's clearly something unusual going on when special grammatical rules come into play, which makes one expect more to follow. When I considered the possibility of *-lu'wI'*, it was like hearing the other shoe dropping. In English passive voice, this is true. *-lu'* is not English passive

voice. In Klingon, when *-lu'* is added, the object remains the object.

This is the language used to decribe what goes on in Klingon. My point is the construction i

Your sentence seems to have been cut off.

Oops! I think I was saying the language used in TKD attempts to describe Klingon grammar in terms familiar to the reader, but that Klingons do not necessarily conceive of their grammar in those terms. Therefore there is a danger of accepting TKD's explanations too literally, and based on that, forcing an interpretation of Klingon grammar that Klingons would rightly consider alien. I partly agree. TKD certainly is not written in careful linguistic terms. It uses many linguistic terms, but these are not usually defined for the reader; you have to already know what subjects and objects and nouns and verbs are, for instance. Taking TKD too literally is indeed fraught with peril. However, that is not to say that a Klingon grammarian's analysis of Klingon is the only possible analysis. First remember the fictional background of the book. It is written by a Federation government committee, or a scientific council created by the Federation. English-speaking linguists have prepared it for an English-speaking audience. They describe separate parts of the language that Klingon linguists lump together. The fiction of TKD is therefore that it is *describing* the rules of Klingon as it appears naturally, rather than *prescribing* rules to be followed. The rules that TKD describe actually exist and function in Klingon, whether or not Klingon linguists acknowledge or categorize them. There really is a distinction between question words and exclamations, even though Klingon linguists just call them *chuvmey.* The language used to describe *-lu'* and *-wI'* describe incompatible functions. *-lu'* tells us there is no subject. *-wI'* tells us the verb becomes its subject. These cannot be reconciled by any rules described in TKD. If Okrand were to come and tell us that, in fact, here's what combining those two suffixes means, then that'd be a new rule he'd discovered in talking with Maltz and we could apply it. Languages sometimes have rules that seem nonsensical. But we cannot infer your preferred rule from anything we have been given about the rules of Klingon. You have inferred the rule based on the English translations of Klingon sentences. On what do you base your assertion that my inferences are based on English translations? Was it something I said?

...

...

So'bogh DoS DIp chu' jal rom chut je,

*The rule of accord envisions a new, hidden target noun*?

My language here is awkward. An example is called for. When {mulegh ghaH} is changed to {vIleghlu'}. The rule of accord requires the prefix {vI-}, so although semantically there is a null agent and first-person singular patient, grammatically the rule of accord treats this situation as if there were a first-person singular subject and third-person singular object, although that object is merely a grammatical fiction. This is clearly a special situation, and I have to wonder whether OVS accurately reflects how Klingon linguists would interpret it.

*mulegh ghaH* is not changed to *vIleghlu'.* You construct *vIleghlu'* directly. There is no transformation from one to another. When I am thinking in Klingon and I intend to use an indefinite subject, my mind goes straight to *vI-* being the proper prefix.

The *vI-* prefix does not, according to the description in TKD, treat *vIleghlu'* as if it had a first-person singular subject and a third-person singular object. TKD explicitly says the prefixes are used to mean something else. With *-lu',* *vI-* MEANS first-person object. There's no grammatical fiction going on; the prefixes are simply reassigned for *-lu'.*

Now, is it possible that there is some "grammatical fiction" reason WHY the prefixes are reassigned? Maybe, but that's pure conjecture and there's no evidence for it anywhere.

I wasn't implying that vIleghlu' was a form of mulegh ghaH, but rather considering the effect on the prefix if the speaker rephrased the sentence to eliminate the explicit agent. It's impossible (for me, anyway) not to wonder how verbs with -lu' came to have the prefixes they do. I expect that, as with any language, that it's just natural and unquestioned for most native speakers but that it entered speech for a very definite reason that speakers didn't take for granted at the time. What that reason could be I won't even try to guess.

You have now more than once invoked the language of semantics with *agent*. When comparing English passive and active sentences, the shift of agent from object to subject is significant. Let's look at the case for Klingon *-lu'.*

I'm going to use a more active verb than *legh;* there is an argument to be made that there is no agent in seeing. Let's use *qIp* *hit.*

*jagh vIqIp jIH* * I hit the enemy *Here, *jIH* is the subject and the agent. *jagh* is the object and the patient.

*jagh qIplu' * *someone/something hits the enemy; the enemy is hit *Here, there is no subject or agent. *jagh* is the object and the patient.

There has been no shifting around of either syntactic or semantic roles.

Here's another: *jIH muqIp ghaH **he hits me*

*ghaH* is the subject and the agent; *jIH* is the object and the patient

*jIH vIqIplu'* * someone/something hits me; I am hit *There is no subject or agent; *jIH* is the object and the patient.

See? No shift at all in either syntax or semantics. We're simply eliminating the subject from consideration. The fact that prefixes are reassigned is completely irrelevant. It's just a thing to memorize; it doesn't affect the grammar in any other way.

Yes, but thanks to Klingon's rigid word order, for the nouns, the syntax corresponds perfectly to the semantics, so the syntactic analysis is redundant. (The only syntax change is the prefix reassignment, and it's a thing to memorize, but it's also an interesting mystery, and we'll probably never hear an in-universe explanation of how it got that way.) In English, we inflect pronouns to mark their syntactical role. In Klingon, nouns, pronouns, and adjectives undergo a change to mark their syntactic role only when they are neither subject nor object.

...

'a potlhbe', mu'tlheghDaq DI'rujDaq ghap DoS DIpqoqvam chu' tu'be'lu'mo'.

...

wotvaD DoS DIp 'oHtaH nungbogh DIp'e'. moHaqvaD chuHwI' DIp mojlaw' nungbogh DIp. ghu'vam vIqelmeH DIvI' Hol qechmey /subject/ /object/ je, jImISqu'choH. 'ach vuDlIj QIjmeH /subject/ /object/ je wuv SuStel. rarchu'be' tlhIngan Hol, qechmeyvam je 'e' vIQub.

ghu'vam le'mo', SuStel vuD vIHon. latlh meq vIghaj. 'oSlaHbe' wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je, 'eb lonlu'pu' 'ej pagh chavlu'.

Hoch 'eb jon Hol 'e' SaHbe' Hol.

'a chaq SaH tlhInganpu'. 'eb tu'DI', lulo' 'e' bot nuq? lubotlaHbe'ba' tera'ngan Holtej. 'a 'eb lulo' luneHbe' tlhIngan, SIghlaHbe' je tera'ngan Holtej.

Arguing over whether a Klingon would or would not care about a particular grammatical feature is not a useful line of reasoning, in my view.

No, but as any of us who've studied a natural language have observed (and it wouldn't surprise me if this applies to every subscriber on this list), native speakers are under no obligation to speak the language the way the student expects, no matter how good the student's reasoning. Our reasoning is ultimately of a kind with that of the toddler who says "goed" instead of "went." Some of my favorite moments in studying Klingon are Maltz's revelations that Klingons don't speak the language the way we'd expect.

There's much to be said for your conservative approach, that it is less likely to generate Klingon expressions that no Klingon would accept than an approach that accepts any Klingon expression that canon doesn't expressly forbid.

Yes, sometimes in our ignorance we say the grammatical equivalent of *goed* instead of *went.* You're asking us to say *wented.*

Let me state for the record that I do not assert that *-lu'wI'* is good Klingon; I can't possibly know that. The safe bet is that it is not. I merely find the arguments against it, while persuasive, are not conclusive, and have presented my reasons for thinking this. I also think it's a good thing that we can carry on disagreeing about it, without either side getting run out of town. Eventually I'd like to hear from Maltz about it, so we find something else to argue about. ~mIp'av

On 23 February 2017 at 07:07, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

No, my argument that -lu'wI' might function as -ee in employee stems from the fact that if there's a -lu' on the verb, -wI' can't nominalize it as the subject, since there isn't any, so the next candidate is the object.

Why doesn't it turn the verb into its indefinite subject? For example: {Daqawlu'} "you are remembered" *{Daqawlu'wI'} - if I understand your claim, you would claim this means "you who are remembered" (i.e., the "rememberee"), but why doesn't this mean "whoever or whatever remembers you" (the "rememberer")? (I don't think you can stick a prefix like {Da-} and the suffix {-wI'} on the same verb, but while you're sticking {-lu'} and {-wI'} together, why not?) -- De'vID

On 2/28/2017 12:39 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:

What it comes down to is what his thoughts are. So I very much want to hear what he has to say about *-lu'wI'*, and anyone else's reasoning, particularly my own, is no substitute.

Then it's a bit unfair of you to argue with us about it on the list. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name