Assume qeylIS writes an oath, which when heard, turns a coward to a warrior. And this effect of the oath cannot be undone. It is a magical oath of sorts. Could the former coward say: muchoH rIntaH 'ip mu'mey the words of the oath changed me Or is the rIntaH to be used, only when the one who {rIntaH}s is someone sentient ? ~ changan qIj
On 3/8/2019 12:59 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Assume qeylIS writes an oath, which when heard, turns a coward to a warrior.
And this effect of the oath cannot be undone. It is a magical oath of sorts.
Could the former coward say:
muchoH rIntaH 'ip mu'mey the words of the oath changed me
Or is the rIntaH to be used, only when the one who {rIntaH}s is someone sentient ?
There is no requirement of sentience on the part of the subject. *jor rIntaH Hov */The star has exploded (and that's the end of that)./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Unless there’s something grammatical here that I’m missing, you are saying two sentences: [He, She, It, They] change[s] me. The oath’s words are finished. There are two uses of {rIn} that mark it as different from normal Klingon verbs used in normal Klingon grammar: {rIn} is used like the military uses the word “over” to mark the end of a radio transmission, so that each side knows when it’s okay to push the “talk” button. {rIntaH} also can follow a sentence to indicate that something is completely done. Both of these instances involve the verb {rIn} without its own subject, object, or prefix indicating subject or object. {rIn} , pronounced “reen” was used to mark the end of communication via radio in one of the movies. {rIntaH} was used in ST3 in the line {qa’vam De’ vIje’ rIntaH} spoken by valQIS. I think this is the only time in canon that it has been used, and the whole reason it was used here is because in the scene, the actress was speaking English when the scene was shot, and Okrand had to come up with a Klingon line that would match her lip movements when the Klingon was dubbed in, and without {rIntaH}, she would have finished dubbing in her Klingon equivalent line and her lips would still be moving. Qugh is speaking Klingon, because his side of the scene was shot later, after hiring Okrand. ValQIS’s side of the conversation was shot before Okrand was hired. She dubbed her lines in later. All of her lines were shot with her saying exactly what the subtitles say she’s saying and dubbed into Klingon later. Okrand worked hard to come up with a reason for her saying this, so he invented a little extra grammar, for which, so far as I know, he’s never used again. I wouldn’t invest a lot into seeing how far you can extend this grammar element. It just gets weird. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 8, 2019, at 12:59 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Assume qeylIS writes an oath, which when heard, turns a coward to a warrior.
And this effect of the oath cannot be undone. It is a magical oath of sorts.
Could the former coward say:
muchoH rIntaH 'ip mu'mey the words of the oath changed me
Or is the rIntaH to be used, only when the one who {rIntaH}s is someone sentient ?
~ changan qIj _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
{rIn} , pronounced “reen” was used to mark the end of communication via radio in one of the movies.
For those playing along at home, it was used that way in the Morskan listening post scene in ST6.
{rIntaH} was used in ST3 in the line {qa’vam De’ vIje’ rIntaH} spoken by valQIS. I think this is the only time in canon that it has been used
No longer! It's used twice in the paq'batlh. *ghIq Qo'noSDaq Qap rIntaH 'e' Sov qeylIS qotar lIjbe'* *Then, the time came when Kahless saw That his work on Kronos was done, He did not forget Kotar.* (Canto *tlheDrup qeylIS*, book *paq'QIH*, I don't have page or line numbers at the moment) *porgh HoH wa' 'etlh qa' tlhabmoH wa' 'etlh tlhIngan choHlu' rIntaH* *One blade to extinguish the physical life, One blade for freeing the soul, The Klingon's transition was complete.* (Canto *qeylIS Heghbat*, book *paq'QIH*) In the second example, the verb doesn't even have an explicit subject, sentient or otherwise, just a *-lu'*.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 21:54, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
*ghIq Qo'noSDaq Qap rIntaH 'e' Sov*
* qeylIS qotar lIjbe'*
*Then, the time came when Kahless saw That his work on Kronos was done, He did not forget Kotar.*
Here, Okrand had the chance to answer the question of what happens when the verb ({Qap}) to which {rIntaH} is attached has a subject. He chose to avoid answering it by putting {qeylIS} after {'e' Sov} instead. The {'e'} here appears to apply to {Qap rIntaH} and not just to {rIntaH} (or just to {Qap}). -- De'vID
On 3/8/2019 3:17 PM, Will Martin wrote:
{rIntaH} also can follow a sentence to indicate that something is completely done.
Both of these instances involve the verb {rIn} without its own subject, object, or prefix indicating subject or object.
TKD says that *rIntaH* follows the verb. No examples of verbs with explicit subjects have occurred, so a strict reading of the text says that *vIje' rIntaH jIH* is more correct than *vIje' jIH rIntaH.* I would not be surprised if that weren't an absolute — but again, we have no data. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 04:06:01PM -0500, SuStel wrote:
On 3/8/2019 3:17 PM, Will Martin wrote:
{rIntaH} also can follow a sentence to indicate that something is completely done.
Both of these instances involve the verb {rIn} without its own subject, object, or prefix indicating subject or object.
TKD says that *rIntaH* follows the verb. No examples of verbs with explicit subjects have occurred, so a strict reading of the text says that *vIje' rIntaH jIH* is more correct than *vIje' jIH rIntaH.* I would not be surprised if that weren't an absolute — but again, we have no data.
While that is what the text would imply, without explicit confirmation or contradiction from actual examples, I find myself wanting to default to the {vIje' jIH rIntaH} version, the main reason for this being the fact that {rIntaH} is marked as having a third person subject. My intuition is to treat this construction as essentially a shortening of {SENTENCE rIntaH 'e'}. - SapIr
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 22:20, <kechpaja@kechpaja.com> wrote:
While that is what the text would imply, without explicit confirmation or contradiction from actual examples, I find myself wanting to default to the {vIje' jIH rIntaH} version, the main reason for this being the fact that {rIntaH} is marked as having a third person subject. My intuition is to treat this construction as essentially a shortening of {SENTENCE rIntaH 'e'}.
Is that {'e'} supposed to be the *subject* of {rIntaH}? {'e'} can't do that. The construction is really an emphatic version of {vIje'ta' jIH}. The {rIntaH} is effectively replacing {-ta'} here. -- De'vID
That strikes me as peculiar. Since {vIje’} has the prefix assigning the subject to that verb, I would expect that for emphasis, if you wanted to add {jIH} it should go after {vIje’}, as in {vIje’ jIH rIntaH}. Doing it as {vIje’ rIntaH jIH} only makes sense if, given that written Klingon as we know it is phonetic spelling of spoken Klingon, somehow {rIntaH} has become a Type 10 suffix, so it always follows the verb and its other suffixes, and any subject would follow it. Otherwise, I see no justification for {rIntaH jIH}, since as a sentence, it would have to be {jIrIntaH jIH}. But as you point out, we have no data, so this is probably not something any of us can say with authority. I just see this as one of those details that isn’t important to resolve, since there are so many other ways of saying what this purports to say without getting weird with the grammar. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 8, 2019, at 4:06 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/8/2019 3:17 PM, Will Martin wrote:
{rIntaH} also can follow a sentence to indicate that something is completely done.
Both of these instances involve the verb {rIn} without its own subject, object, or prefix indicating subject or object. TKD says that rIntaH follows the verb. No examples of verbs with explicit subjects have occurred, so a strict reading of the text says that vIje' rIntaH jIH is more correct than vIje' jIH rIntaH. I would not be surprised if that weren't an absolute — but again, we have no data.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 3/8/2019 4:50 PM, Will Martin wrote:
That strikes me as peculiar. Since {vIje’} has the prefix assigning the subject to that verb, I would expect that for emphasis, if you wanted to add {jIH} it should go after {vIje’}, as in {vIje’ jIH rIntaH}.
Doing it as {vIje’ rIntaH jIH} only makes sense if, given that written Klingon as we know it is phonetic spelling of spoken Klingon, somehow {rIntaH} has become a Type 10 suffix,
Or it's just an exceptional rule that says the special word *rIntaH* comes after the verb regardless of any subjects or objects. Similar to how the adverbial *neH* comes after a verb or noun as needed instead of coming at the front of a sentence. It's just exceptional. We don't need to make up hypothetical type 10 suffixes.
so it always follows the verb and its other suffixes, and any subject would follow it. Otherwise, I see no justification for {rIntaH jIH}, since as a sentence, it would have to be {jIrIntaH jIH}.
No, the *jIH* would be the subject of *vIje',* with the word *rIntaH* simply being inserted after the verb. We have no problem with *qa'vIn De' vIje' neH jIH*/I merely buy the Genesis data./ Why would we have a problem with *qa'vIn De' vIje' rIntaH jIH*/I have bought the Genesis data/? On the other hand, this is being described in TKD as a special kind of sentence-as-object construction, so it might make sense that when Okrand said /verb/ he actually meant /sentence,/ since all his examples have no explicit subject. Again, without data, we can't decide one way or the other. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 22:51, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Doing it as {vIje’ rIntaH jIH} only makes sense if, given that written Klingon as we know it is phonetic spelling of spoken Klingon, somehow {rIntaH} has become a Type 10 suffix, so it always follows the verb and its other suffixes, and any subject would follow it. Otherwise, I see no justification for {rIntaH jIH}, since as a sentence, it would have to be {jIrIntaH jIH}.
If it's acting like a suffix, then it's surely acting like a type 7, namely, the {-ta'} that it's replacing. Since we have no examples of a type 8 ({-neS}) or type 9 following {rIntaH}, and the way we write Klingon is a phonetic transcription of how it's spoken, {vIje' rIntaH jIH} might as well be {vIje'rIntaH jIH} where {-rIntaH} is a two-syllable type 7 suffix. Indeed, since {ta'} "accomplish" and {taH} "continue" are verbs, one might speculate that they were verbs which became suffixes. Perhaps {rIntaH} is undergoing a similar evolution, but has resisted full assimilation as a suffix because it's two syllables. But until we have a canon (counter)example either way, we can't tell. -- De'vID
While we don't have an example of *rIntaH* with an overt subject, we do have another data point we can use. When Okrand describes the tag question *qar'a'*, he says it can "follow the verb", the same phrase he uses to describe the placement of *rIntaH*. And we do have an example of *qar'a'* followed by an explicit subject: *De' Sov qar'a' HoD* *The captain knows the information, right? *Since Okrand describes both constructions as "following the verb", it seems reasonable to me to conclude that (for example) *De' Sov rIntaH HoD* *The captain knows the information for good* is the proper use of *rIntaH*. On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 1:50 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 22:51, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Doing it as {vIje’ rIntaH jIH} only makes sense if, given that written Klingon as we know it is phonetic spelling of spoken Klingon, somehow {rIntaH} has become a Type 10 suffix, so it always follows the verb and its other suffixes, and any subject would follow it. Otherwise, I see no justification for {rIntaH jIH}, since as a sentence, it would have to be {jIrIntaH jIH}.
If it's acting like a suffix, then it's surely acting like a type 7, namely, the {-ta'} that it's replacing. Since we have no examples of a type 8 ({-neS}) or type 9 following {rIntaH}, and the way we write Klingon is a phonetic transcription of how it's spoken, {vIje' rIntaH jIH} might as well be {vIje'rIntaH jIH} where {-rIntaH} is a two-syllable type 7 suffix. Indeed, since {ta'} "accomplish" and {taH} "continue" are verbs, one might speculate that they were verbs which became suffixes. Perhaps {rIntaH} is undergoing a similar evolution, but has resisted full assimilation as a suffix because it's two syllables.
But until we have a canon (counter)example either way, we can't tell.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (6)
-
De'vID -
kechpaja＠kechpaja.com -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin