Beginner's text and questions
qaStaHvIS wej Hogh ret *Cádiz*Daq maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je. DaH DoyIchlan bIr wIcheghpu'. pIj pa' maghIQ, bIQ'a' HeHmey Dun, vengHommey 'IHqu', jorchanmey Dajqu' je ghajmo' *Cádiz*. *Sevilla*Daq Sum je, vengvamDaq jIboghpu'. *Andalusia*Daq bIH *Cádiz*'e' *Sevilla*'e' je. qaStaHvIS qImroq tuj, yoSvamDaq tujtaH muD, wovtaH jul, chISchu' tamghay. *Cádiz*Daq muvchuq 'atlantIq bIQ'a' *Mediterranean* bIQ'a' je 'ej 'avrI'qa' leghmeH, 'op Daqvo' mIn neH lupoQlu'. Dojqu' jorchanvam. 'ach reH pa' jIHtaHDI', 'avrI'qa'vo' Sumlaw' je 'ewrop 'e' vIqawnIS. Do'Ha' 'ewrop lughoSmeH, SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'. nur, yIn qaq je nej. Do'Ha' roD 'ewropDaq ngeDbe' ghu'chaj. As usual, I would appreciate any help / correction in order to improve my Klingon. I also have two questions: 1. Is this sentence correct?: *Do'Ha' 'ewrop lughoSmeH, SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'.* Or should I say: *'ewrop lughoSmeH, Do'Ha' SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'.*? Actually, *Do'Ha'* modifies the whole sentence, but I'm not sure about how it works in Klingon. 2. Regarding my last post about time context (http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2021-June/017546.html): Sorry, but I'm having more problems with this matter than I've expected. Maybe I'm making it more difficult than it is. When I say *pIj pa' maghIQ* I want to say that we often *go* on vacation there, not that we often *went* (imperfective). As I understand it, if someone says *we often went on vacation there* I expect some explanation about why they don't go there anymore or why they have started going there again or something like this. So, if no such explanation comes, we'll interpret *pIj pa' maghIQ* as present, right? And the same goes for the description of the summer weather in this region. (Of course, the sentences about the position of the seas and the cities are not likely to be interpreted as past without further context). And in a similar way: *Do'Ha' 'ewrop lughoSmeH, SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'. nur, yIn qaq je nej. Do'Ha' roD 'ewropDaq ngeDbe' ghu'chaj.* If I wanted to say that many people *risked* (imperfective) their lifes in order to come to Europe, then I would add some temporal context in which this imperfective actions were taking place, like *many years ago* or "during the last two centuries* or something like this. Without further context, the more likely interpretation is present again. Or should I provide some context anyway in order to get the *present* interpretation and, if so, how? Thank you!
On 7/23/2021 11:36 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
qaStaHvIS wej Hogh ret *Cádiz*Daq maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je.
This says /During three weeks ago, my wife and I were vacationing in Cádiz./ I suspect you actually mean either *wej Hogh rej /Cádiz/Daq maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je* /Three weeks ago, my wife and I were vacationing in Cádiz /or *qaStaHvIS wej Hogh vorgh, maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je*/During the last three weeks, my wife and I have been vacationing in Cádiz./
*Cádiz*Daq muvchuq 'atlantIq bIQ'a' *Mediterranean* bIQ'a' je 'ej 'avrI'qa' leghmeH, 'op Daqvo' mIn neH lupoQlu'.
This is a little tricky because we don't fully know all the rules involved, but I think you probably want to use *leghlu'meH* to match up with the *lupoQlu'.*
'ach reH pa' jIHtaHDI', 'avrI'qa'vo' Sumlaw' je 'ewrop 'e' vIqawnIS.
To say that something is /near/*Sum* to something else, you use the locative, not the ablative. You did this correctly earlier. *'avrI'qa'Daq Sumlaw' je 'ewrop*/Europe is also apparently near Africa./ I'm not exactly sure why you're expressing uncertainty there with *-law'.*
Do'Ha' 'ewrop lughoSmeH, SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'.
/Unfortunately, in order to go to Europe, many desperate people are very near./ I'm not sure that a purpose clause is appropriate here. The many desperate people are not near /in order to /go to Europe.
1. Is this sentence correct?: *Do'Ha' 'ewrop lughoSmeH, SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'.* Or should I say: *'ewrop lughoSmeH, Do'Ha' SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'.*? Actually, *Do'Ha'* modifies the whole sentence, but I'm not sure about how it works in Klingon.
I struggle with this as well, but I don't think there's a clear answer. Can you split one sentence with a subordinate clause? I dunno.
2. Regarding my last post about time context (http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2021-June/017546.html): Sorry, but I'm having more problems with this matter than I've expected. Maybe I'm making it more difficult than it is. When I say *pIj pa' maghIQ* I want to say that we often *go* on vacation there, not that we often *went* (imperfective). As I understand it, if someone says *we often went on vacation there* I expect some explanation about why they don't go there anymore or why they have started going there again or something like this. So, if no such explanation comes, we'll interpret *pIj pa' maghIQ* as present, right? And the same goes for the description of the summer weather in this region. (Of course, the sentences about the position of the seas and the cities are not likely to be interpreted as past without further context).
If I had no context, I'd interpret *pIj pa' maghIQ* as a timeless fact and translate it into English simple present tense /(We often vacation there)./ If there were more context, like *cha'ben pIj pa' maghIQ,//*I would interpret it as a general fact that was true as of the mentioned time, and I would translate it into the simple tense appropriate to that time (in this case, /Two years ago, we would often vacation there/ or /Two years ago, we often vacationed there./) That's not to say that a lack of context necessarily implies a timeless fact. It's just that I wouldn't know any differently if there were no context.
And in a similar way: *Do'Ha' 'ewrop lughoSmeH, SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'. nur, yIn qaq je nej. Do'Ha' roD 'ewropDaq ngeDbe' ghu'chaj.* If I wanted to say that many people *risked* (imperfective) their lifes in order to come to Europe, then I would add some temporal context in which this imperfective actions were taking place, like *many years ago* or "during the last two centuries* or something like this. Without further context, the more likely interpretation is present again. Or should I provide some context anyway in order to get the *present* interpretation and, if so, how?
In general, provide context if you care whether your audience knows when to place a verb in time. If you don't care, you don't need context.*valtIn, tem je yugh bIQSIp HeySel*/The hydrogen atom consists of a proton and an electron./ I don't care about time context here, so I don't need any, and I don't expect my audience to be looking for any temporal position. *be' ghaH mara'e'*/Mara is a woman:/ Likewise, this is a timeless fact; as long as there is a Mara, she is a woman. *HoD ghaH tlha''a'e' */Klaa is the captain:/ Klaa isn't /always/ the captain, but I can probably depend on my audience to know that I'm talking about a time when Klaa is captain, so I /probably /don't need to give a time context just for that. *qagh vISop:* This becomes trickier. Is there a particular time when I eat gagh? Now? The future? Generally? Always? Sometimes? Context will answer these questions.//*wa'leS qagh vISop*/I will eat gagh tomorrow/ (the future).*not qagh vISop*/I never eat gagh/ (a timeless fact). *naH jajwIj qagh vISop*/I ate gagh as a youth/ (a general fact limited in time to my youth). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I suspect you actually mean either wej Hogh rej CádizDaq maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je Three weeks ago, my wife and I were vacationing in Cádiz or qaStaHvIS wej Hogh vorgh, maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je During the last three weeks, my wife and I have been vacationing in Cádiz.
I actually mean the last one, but I used *ret* because I found this example on *boQwI'*: *qaStaHvIS cha' tup ret jIQuch*, with *ret* meaning *be most recent*...
This is a little tricky because we don't fully know all the rules involved, but I think you probably want to use leghlu'meH to match up with the lupoQlu'.
Ok. I've read in the *Klingon Grammar Addenda* by Terrence Donnelly that *when the subject of the purpose clause is indefinite, you can indicate this with -lu' or by 3rd person zero-suffix and no stated subject noun*. I thought it was something commonly accepted. So, you are suggesting I should always use *-lu'* in such constructions, or maybe only in this case because I was using *-lu'* with *poQ* (as a matter of style)?
To say that something is near Sum to something else, you use the locative, not the ablative. You did this correctly earlier. 'avrI'qa'Daq Sumlaw' je 'ewrop Europe is also apparently near Africa. I'm not exactly sure why you're expressing uncertainty there with -law'.
Well, I was actually trying to put myself in the perspective of African people. From our side Africa seems to be very near, but likewise, from Africa, Europe seems to be very near too, and that's why many people risk their lifes to come here. I didn't exactly want to say *Europe is near Africa*, but *from the African side, Europe seems to be very near too*. I used *-law'* because it *seems* to be very near, so that motivates people to try to reach Europe, but after all it's about 15 km of sea, and immigrants come mostly on very simple, overloaded boats, which is extremely risky.
Do'Ha' 'ewrop lughoSmeH, SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'. Unfortunately, in order to go to Europe, many desperate people are very near. I'm not sure that a purpose clause is appropriate here. The many desperate people are not near in order to go to Europe.
I was trying to say *many desperate people risk a lot*. I found *SuD* on boQwI', meaning *gamble, take a chance, take a risk*. I don't know if it's correct here.
Actually, *Do'Ha'* modifies the whole sentence, but I'm not sure about how it works in Klingon. I struggle with this as well, but I don't think there's a clear answer. Can you split one sentence with a subordinate clause? I dunno.
Ok, thank you. Anyway, *Do'Ha'* at the beginning doesn't sound very bad, right?
That's not to say that a lack of context necessarily implies a timeless fact. It's just that I wouldn't know any differently if there were no context.
I think that's exactly what I was trying to say. In every (good) act of communication, the listener / reader is supposed to have any information they need to understand the text. In order to place something in the past or future or in a specific moment of the present, we need context. Otherwise, we cannot know *when* the event actually occurred. The only option that works fine without any further context are timeless interpretations. (Of course, there are other factors at play such as the previous knowledge of the audience, pragmatics and so on, so as you say, not *always* a lack of context necessarily implies a timeless fact).
On 7/23/2021 2:28 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
I suspect you actually mean either wej Hogh rej CádizDaq maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je Three weeks ago, my wife and I were vacationing in Cádiz or qaStaHvIS wej Hogh vorgh, maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je During the last three weeks, my wife and I have been vacationing in Cádiz. I actually mean the last one, but I used *ret* because I found this example on *boQwI'*: *qaStaHvIS cha' tup ret jIQuch*, with *ret* meaning *be most recent*...
Aha, I did not remember the relatively recent addition of *ret */be more recent./ Your sentence is correct.
This is a little tricky because we don't fully know all the rules involved, but I think you probably want to use leghlu'meH to match up with the lupoQlu'. Ok. I've read in the *Klingon Grammar Addenda* by Terrence Donnelly that *when the subject of the purpose clause is indefinite, you can indicate this with -lu' or by 3rd person zero-suffix and no stated subject noun*. I thought it was something commonly accepted. So, you are suggesting I should always use *-lu'* in such constructions, or maybe only in this case because I was using *-lu'* with *poQ* (as a matter of style)?
In general, but not absolutely, we've seen subjects or indefinite subjects on purpose clauses attached to verbs, but no subjects or indefinite subjects on purpose clauses attached to nouns. There have been exceptions. This is not a rule found in TKD, and we have no explanation for why the apparent rule seems to apply most of the time but not all the time. That's why I said it's tricky.
Do'Ha' 'ewrop lughoSmeH, SuDqu' QIlbogh nuv law'. Unfortunately, in order to go to Europe, many desperate people are very near. I'm not sure that a purpose clause is appropriate here. The many desperate people are not near in order to go to Europe. I was trying to say *many desperate people risk a lot*. I found *SuD* on boQwI', meaning *gamble, take a chance, take a risk*. I don't know if it's correct here.
Heh, I misread *SuD* as *Sum.* My mistake.
Actually, *Do'Ha'* modifies the whole sentence, but I'm not sure about how it works in Klingon. I struggle with this as well, but I don't think there's a clear answer. Can you split one sentence with a subordinate clause? I dunno. Ok, thank you. Anyway, *Do'Ha'* at the beginning doesn't sound very bad, right?
I don't personally have a problem with it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you again for your helpful answers, SuStel! I don't want to bother you, but in my last post I also asked about how to say *from Africa, Europe also seems to be near*. Since you haven't say anything about that, does it mean that my original sentence (*'avrI'qa'vo' Sumlaw' je 'ewrop*) was right?
On 7/23/2021 3:08 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
I don't want to bother you, but in my last post I also asked about how to say*from Africa, Europe also seems to be near*. Since you haven't say anything about that, does it mean that my original sentence (*'avrI'qa'vo' Sumlaw' je 'ewrop*) was right?
To say /from X, Y is near,/ you say *XDaq Sum Y.* It can be interpreted literally: at location X, Y is nearby. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Since Luis is wondering about {Sum}, here’s a Q & A between Marc Okrand (MO) and Will Martin (WM) from HolQeD (Dec. 1998: pp. 9-10) : MO: Using the verbs {Sum} and {Hop} involves this concept [of deixis]. WM: So I could not say {raSvam vISum} to say, “I am near the table”. MO: No. You'd just say {Sum raS}. The verb {Sum} implies that the speaker is the one the subject is near at the time of speaking. {Hop jabwI'}. “The waiter is far from me right now. “ WM: Well, that resolves the conflict otherwise created if they could take objects. It keeps them stative, so you can say, {HIvje' Sum yItlhap}. MO: Yes. WM: Otherwise, they'd be the only verbs we'd sometimes use as adjectives and other times use transitively. MO: Take an object. Yes. WM: So, could that deictic anchor be shifted by using an indirect object? Like if I wanted to say, “You are near the table”, could I say {SoHvaD Sum raS}? MO: No. You'd use {-Daq}: {SoHDaq Sum raS}. This throws the orientation away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener (marked, stated: "at you, where you are"). But you don't always need to state this overtly. Context is critical. For example: {qagh largh SuvwI' ghung. Sum qagh 'e' Sov.} “The hungry warrior smells the gagh. He/she knows the gagh is nearby.” The only interpretation of this (absent other information) is that the warrior knows the gagh is near the warrior, not the warrior knows the gagh is near the speaker of the sentences. If context isn't clear, you can clarify: Question: Sum'a' raS? Is the table near (me)? (Am I near the table?) Answer: HIja'. Sum raS. Yes. The table is near (you). Answer: ghobe'. jIHDaq Sum raS. No. The table is near me. WM: And could I say {maSumchuq}? MO: No. You'd just say {bISum} or {SuSum}. If you haven't, in the course of the conversation, set things up otherwise, it's assumed that the event being talked about is taking place where the speaker is. In fact, {jISum} alone probably would make no everyday sense to a Klingon. “I am near me.” But it does have an idiomatic philosophical sense, something like “I'm in touch with my inner self” (but in a Klingon sort of way, of course). Here’s another note from Okrand: (qurgh < MO, qep’a’ 2017): [{Hay} “area beyond” is] normally used with a point of reference: beyond X. When asked about “area nearby” Maltz wasn’t sure what was being asked and said to make use of the verb {Sum} “be nearby”. Here are more examples of {Sum}: Sum Daqmeyvam, tera'ngan These places are nearby, Terran. (CK) SumchoH mangghom 'Iw largh The army closes in, smelling blood. (PB) Daq SumHa'vo' wab Huj Qoylu' Strange sounds come from afar (PB) pIvghor yIchu' 'ej Duj Sumqu' yIjaH Warp to the nearest vessel. (MKE) pIvghor yIchu' 'ej HoSHal Sumqu' yIjaH Advance to the nearest energy source. (MKE) yuQ SumDaq cha'puj law' Datu' Detect large sums of dilithium on nearby planet. (MKE) And finally, there’s a near synonym {Daq HopHa’} “[a place] not far away” from the paq’batlh : Daq HopHa’Daq qa’chaj nejlI’ qotar Qempa’QeH je Not far away, Kotar and his Qempa'keh, are in search for their souls. (PB) -- Voragh ________________________________________________________________ From: SuStel On 7/23/2021 3:08 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de<mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote: I don't want to bother you, but in my last post I also asked about how to say *from Africa, Europe also seems to be near*. Since you haven't say anything about that, does it mean that my original sentence (*'avrI'qa'vo' Sumlaw' je 'ewrop*) was right? To say from X, Y is near, you say XDaq Sum Y. It can be interpreted literally: at location X, Y is nearby. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/trimboli.name__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!vVQgrhr5U-pjCNZ9_8FpjDUqiDMkxgApnv9QiSFu4WZj3ORM8cHcf9GTPe6NZhpBj8s$>
As always, thank you very much, Voragh, for being a living encyclopedia of the Klingon language!
In line below:
On Jul 23, 2021, at 2:28 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
I suspect you actually mean either wej Hogh rej CádizDaq maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je Three weeks ago, my wife and I were vacationing in Cádiz or qaStaHvIS wej Hogh vorgh, maghIQtaH be'nalwI' jIH je During the last three weeks, my wife and I have been vacationing in Cádiz.
I actually mean the last one, but I used *ret* because I found this example on *boQwI'*: *qaStaHvIS cha' tup ret jIQuch*, with *ret* meaning *be most recent*...
This is a little tricky because we don't fully know all the rules involved, but I think you probably want to use leghlu'meH to match up with the lupoQlu'.
Ok. I've read in the *Klingon Grammar Addenda* by Terrence Donnelly that *when the subject of the purpose clause is indefinite, you can indicate this with -lu' or by 3rd person zero-suffix and no stated subject noun*. I thought it was something commonly accepted. So, you are suggesting I should always use *-lu'* in such constructions, or maybe only in this case because I was using *-lu'* with *poQ* (as a matter of style)?
SuStel said “This is a little tricky because we don’t know all the rules involved,” because we like to say that Klingon lacks an equivalent to an infinitive in human languages, except that {-meH} clauses inconsistently appear to be just that. The infinitive lacks a subject or object, as in “to learn”. We don’t know who is learning. We don’t know what is being learned. The infinitive form of the verb “learn” is “to learn” and it doesn’t tell us. Almost everywhere in Klingon, you always indicate at least a subject (even if it’s an indefinite subject) with every verb. No visible or audible prefix just means third person subject. {-lu’} makes it clear we all know there’s a subject. We’re just not revealing who it is. But with {ghojmeH taj}, we know that the purpose of the knife is “to learn”. We don’t say anything about who is learning or what is being learned. It’s pretty clearly infinitive. It’s a to-learn knife. Okrand never fully explained this, and casually looking at examples, it looked like if a verb with {-meH} applied to a noun, giving the purpose of the noun, it was infinitive, but if it gave the purpose of a main clause (in other words, gave the purpose of a verb), then you had to use a prefix or {-lu’}, like all other uses of verbs in the language because the canon examples clearly are not infinitive. Anyway, a more complete collection of canon includes examples of apparent infinitives giving the purpose of clauses and obvious not infinitives giving the purpose of nouns, so if there are actual guidelines for dealing with these two different personalities of verbs with {-meH} applied, Okrand has not clarified the rule or given us canon that makes it clear. This is definitely one of the least clearly defined areas of Klingon grammar, but we get by, anyway. charghwI’ ‘utlh ghaH, ghaH, -Daj
charghwI':
Okrand never fully explained this, and casually looking at examples, it looked like if a verb with {-meH} applied to a noun, giving the purpose of the noun, it was infinitive, but if it gave the purpose of a main clause (in other words, gave the purpose of a verb), then you had to use a prefix or {-lu’}, like all other uses of verbs in the language because the canon examples clearly are not infinitive.
Anyway, a more complete collection of canon includes examples of apparent infinitives giving the purpose of clauses and obvious not infinitives giving the purpose of nouns, so if there are actual guidelines for dealing with these two different personalities of verbs with {-meH} applied, Okrand has not clarified the rule or given us canon that makes it clear.
This is definitely one of the least clearly defined areas of Klingon grammar, but we get by, anyway.
Thanks to your reply and SuStel's I was able to gain a good overview of this problem. Finding the right information is sometimes very difficult and this email list is a great help with that!
participants (4)
-
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin