first go here: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type3VerbSuffixes there, at the -choH/change examples it says at the third row: {jIghelbe'choHlaHbe'}. so now I ask: can we use the {-be'} twice in the same word ? qunnoH jan puqloD
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:53:35PM +0200, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
first go here:
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type3VerbSuffixes
there, at the -choH/change examples it says at the third row: {jIghelbe'choHlaHbe'}.
so now I ask: can we use the {-be'} twice in the same word ?
At the qepHom earlier this month, Marc told me and a few other folks that you can't have more than one {-be'} (or more than one {-qu'}) in a single word. (Has this been documented anywhere? I didn't write down what Marc said verbatim; I only remember having the discussion) -SapIr
On 11/16/2016 7:14 AM, kechpaja wrote:
At the qepHom earlier this month, Marc told me and a few other folks that you can't have more than one {-be'} (or more than one {-qu'}) in a single word.
(Has this been documented anywhere? I didn't write down what Marc said verbatim; I only remember having the discussion)
So far as I know, this is new information. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, wait.. if we don't take into account the last qepHom; if we approach the {jIghelbe'choHlaHbe'} by the grammar we knew all those years, then this means what ? that we can have two {-be'} in a single word ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Nov 2016 2:35 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/16/2016 7:14 AM, kechpaja wrote:
At the qepHom earlier this month, Marc told me and a few other folks that you can't have more than one {-be'} (or more than one {-qu'}) in a single word.
(Has this been documented anywhere? I didn't write down what Marc said verbatim; I only remember having the discussion)
So far as I know, this is new information.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 16.11.2016 um 13:14 schrieb kechpaja:
At the qepHom earlier this month, Marc told me and a few other folks that you can't have more than one {-be'} (or more than one {-qu'}) in a single word.
I can confirm that, because I also observed or even was part of the discussion. But... Anyway, I should not that this was one of the situations where Okrand was overwhelmed by the question and may have answered without intensely thinking about it, hence maybe unintentionally contradicting himself. There was someone who mentioned that "no more than one suffix of each type may occur at a time" (chapter 4.2.10 TKD). It was this that Okrand confirmed. The mentioned rule regards only non-rovers. I'm sure Okrand did not think of the possible construction with two {-be'} in one word, so I would not put too much weight on what he said. TKD further says that {-be'} "follows the concept being negated". If I take this literally, I could probably use it nine times one a verb with nine sufixes: {jIghelbe'choHbe'laHbe'taHbe'} "I am not continously not able to not change not asking" Hey, let's add some -qu' and -Qo' :-) {qaleghbe'qu'} sounds okay, I guess we even have canon examples that will confirm that. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
so, we can add a sh@!@load (as americans say) of rovers on a single word ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Nov 2016 3:01 pm, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 16.11.2016 um 13:14 schrieb kechpaja:
At the qepHom earlier this month, Marc told me and a few other folks that you can't have more than one {-be'} (or more than one {-qu'}) in a single word.
I can confirm that, because I also observed or even was part of the discussion. But...
Anyway, I should not that this was one of the situations where Okrand was overwhelmed by the question and may have answered without intensely thinking about it, hence maybe unintentionally contradicting himself.
There was someone who mentioned that "no more than one suffix of each type may occur at a time" (chapter 4.2.10 TKD). It was this that Okrand confirmed. The mentioned rule regards only non-rovers. I'm sure Okrand did not think of the possible construction with two {-be'} in one word, so I would not put too much weight on what he said.
TKD further says that {-be'} "follows the concept being negated". If I take this literally, I could probably use it nine times one a verb with nine sufixes: {jIghelbe'choHbe'laHbe'taHbe'} "I am not continously not able to not change not asking"
Hey, let's add some -qu' and -Qo' :-)
{qaleghbe'qu'} sounds okay, I guess we even have canon examples that will confirm that.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 16.11.2016 um 14:10 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
so, we can add a sh@!@load (as americans say) of rovers on a single word ?
My interpretation is that we can. TKD even shows us two examples of using {-be'} and {-qu'} on one verb: {nuQawqu'be'} "they have not finished us off" {pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} "we are NOT afraid to kill you" So at least that is clear we can use multiple rovers on one verb. It does not answer the question of using the same rover multiple times, but one can narrow it in: {-Ha'} always comes right after the verb, so double use makes no sense (yajHa'Ha'??) {-Qo'} always comes at the end, so same as {-Ha'}. {-be'} and {-qu'} are true "rovers". {-qu'} emphasizes what preceds it, even the suffix {-be'} {-be'} negates what precedes it, even the suffix {-qu'} Altough I have no canon examples, I'm sure that it's okay to negate multiple concepts of a verb. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
lieven:
Altough I have no canon examples, I'm sure that it's okay to negate multiple concepts of a verb.
you mean using more than one time the {-be'} on the same verb ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Nov 2016 4:01 pm, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 16.11.2016 um 14:10 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
so, we can add a sh@!@load (as americans say) of rovers on a single word ?
My interpretation is that we can.
TKD even shows us two examples of using {-be'} and {-qu'} on one verb: {nuQawqu'be'} "they have not finished us off"
{pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} "we are NOT afraid to kill you"
So at least that is clear we can use multiple rovers on one verb. It does not answer the question of using the same rover multiple times, but one can narrow it in:
{-Ha'} always comes right after the verb, so double use makes no sense (yajHa'Ha'??)
{-Qo'} always comes at the end, so same as {-Ha'}.
{-be'} and {-qu'} are true "rovers".
{-qu'} emphasizes what preceds it, even the suffix {-be'} {-be'} negates what precedes it, even the suffix {-qu'}
Altough I have no canon examples, I'm sure that it's okay to negate multiple concepts of a verb.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jatlh Lieven:
TKD further says that {-be'} "follows the concept being negated". If I take this literally, I could probably use it nine times one a verb with nine sufixes: {jIghelbe'choHbe'laHbe'taHbe'} "I am not continously not able to not change not asking"
What context would prompt you to form a verb like this? Even with your
explanation, no matter how often I read the word (well, about 8 times so far), I still get lost by the end. Multiple negation becomes confusing very quickly (in any language, I expect). But even if we find out it's definitely ungrammatical, using multiple -qu' for added emphasis seems like one of those intentional violations Klingons use for effect. I could say something like be'nalwI' SoS pI'qu'qu'! (Actually this statement is very false, but I was thinking of an old joke.) ~mIp'av
if it helps to take a stroll down memory lane.. the original {jIghelbe'choHlaHbe'}, (which sparked this thread), was written by Qov as a reply to one of my -kahless knows- numerous questions. she was trying to show me, how to say something like "I'm not able to stop myself from asking". back then, being more of a beginner than I'm now, I didn't notice the two {-be'} on the same word. this happened only today, and the confusion commenced. now, since Qov is an expert I don't think she would have written this word, if the two {-be'} weren't actually allowed. however, it surprises me that noone else has ever used such a construction, at least not during the 14 months I've been here.. why doesn't someone send a mail to okrand in order to verify ? after all this regards something which took place at the qepHom. qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Nov 2016 4:20 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
jatlh Lieven:
TKD further says that {-be'} "follows the concept being negated". If I take this literally, I could probably use it nine times one a verb with nine sufixes: {jIghelbe'choHbe'laHbe'taHbe'} "I am not continously not able to not change not asking"
What context would prompt you to form a verb like this? Even with your
explanation, no matter how often I read the word (well, about 8 times so far), I still get lost by the end.
Multiple negation becomes confusing very quickly (in any language, I expect).
But even if we find out it's definitely ungrammatical, using multiple -qu' for added emphasis seems like one of those intentional violations Klingons use for effect. I could say something like be'nalwI' SoS pI'qu'qu'! (Actually this statement is very false, but I was thinking of an old joke.)
~mIp'av
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/16/2016 9:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
the original {jIghelbe'choHlaHbe'}, (which sparked this thread), was written by Qov as a reply to one of my -kahless knows- numerous questions.
she was trying to show me, how to say something like "I'm not able to stop myself from asking".
back then, being more of a beginner than I'm now, I didn't notice the two {-be'} on the same word. this happened only today, and the confusion commenced.
now, since Qov is an expert I don't think she would have written this word, if the two {-be'} weren't actually allowed.
I wouldn't have said it that way. *jIghel 'e' vImevlaHbe'* or *jIghel 'e' vIbotlaHbe'**.* But maybe Qov had a reason to say it her way. There's no known rule /against/ reusing a rover in a word, but there's no precedent for it and it's /very/ confusing. Best not to do it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Best not to do it.
I agree. As mIp'av wrote, multiple negations can be confusing in any language. I just asked about these multiple {-be'}, because they seemed very strange. qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Nov 2016 4:51 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/16/2016 9:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
the original {jIghelbe'choHlaHbe'}, (which sparked this thread), was written by Qov as a reply to one of my -kahless knows- numerous questions.
she was trying to show me, how to say something like "I'm not able to stop myself from asking".
back then, being more of a beginner than I'm now, I didn't notice the two {-be'} on the same word. this happened only today, and the confusion commenced.
now, since Qov is an expert I don't think she would have written this word, if the two {-be'} weren't actually allowed.
I wouldn't have said it that way. *jIghel 'e' vImevlaHbe'* or *jIghel 'e' vIbotlaHbe'**.* But maybe Qov had a reason to say it her way.
There's no known rule *against* reusing a rover in a word, but there's no precedent for it and it's *very* confusing. Best not to do it.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:14 AM, kechpaja <kechpaja@comcast.net> wrote:
At the qepHom earlier this month, Marc told me and a few other folks that you can't have more than one {-be'} (or more than one {-qu'}) in a single word.
(Has this been documented anywhere? I didn't write down what Marc said verbatim; I only remember having the discussion)
The existence of that rule(-Hey) is going to need some stronger evidence before I start following it. I remember hearing Marc Okrand agree, many years ago, with the idea that two {-be'} or two {-qu'} suffixes *in a row* would not be considered proper. Are you sure that's not what he was saying? -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
Ed Bailey -
kechpaja -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel