{'e' qa'} "instead of" with quotations
Suppose I write: < Duv > jatlhpu' 'e' DaSov you know that he said "advance" Since there's no rule prohibiting placing a quotation before the {'e'} of a sao (as long as the verb after the {'e'} isn't a verb of speech), seemingly/apparently this sentence would be correct. So, similarly, wouldn't the following be correct too? < HeD > jatlhpu'; < HIv > jatlhpu' 'e' qa' instead of saying "attack" he said "retreat" Of course, one could argue that the {'e'} of the {'e' qa'} isn't the "classic" {'e'} of a sao, but if that's the case, then even better, right? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 10/6/2021 7:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose I write:
< Duv > jatlhpu' 'e' DaSov you know that he said "advance"
Since there's no rule prohibiting placing a quotation before the {'e'} of a sao (as long as the verb after the {'e'} isn't a verb of speech), seemingly/apparently this sentence would be correct.
Be careful. What you're doing isn't placing a quotation before the *'e';* you're treating a sentence-as-object construction (the verb of saying and its quotation) as the first sentence of another sentence-as-object construction. You're nesting SAOs. The structure is not this: <quote> < <jatlhpu'> 'e' DaSov> The structure is this: < <quote> jatlhpu' > <'e' DaSov> You could also say it like this: < jatlhpu' <quote> > <'e' DaSov>
So, similarly, wouldn't the following be correct too?
< HeD > jatlhpu'; < HIv > jatlhpu' 'e' qa' instead of saying "attack" he said "retreat"
Yes, I would accept that. The fact that the "replacement" is a sentence-as-object instead of a basic sentence appears to be of no import.
Of course, one could argue that the {'e'} of the {'e' qa'} isn't the "classic" {'e'} of a sao, but if that's the case, then even better, right?
It /is/ the classic *'e'* of an SAO. When you're saying <sentence1>; <sentence2> 'e' qa' You need the *'e', *because it literally means /it replaces that <sentence2>./ It's only when you're /instead/-ing noun phrases that *'e'* is not required. *'awje' vItlhutlh; HIq qa' 'awje' vItlhutlh; HIq 'e' qa' */I drink root beer instead of alcohol./ Technically, the *'e'* in the above sentence is ungrammatical, but Klingons may say it anyway. But when dealing with full sentences, the *'e'* is required and is the same old *'e'* we've always known. *jIQam; jIba' 'e' qa' */I stand instead of sitting./ This is literally /I stand; it replaces that I sit./ You cannot say *jIQam; jIba' qa',* because the object of *qa'* /replace /cannot directly be a sentence. You need the pronoun to stand in for it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
jIQam; jIba' 'e' qa' I stand instead of sitting. This is literally I stand; it replaces that I sit. You cannot say jIQam; jIba' qa', because the object of qa' replace cannot directly be a sentence. You need the pronoun to stand in for it.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is actually the subject of *qa'* in this sentence? I would say that is the first sentence (*jIQam*), something like *That I stand replaces that I sit*. But since sentences as subjects aren't possible in Klingon, I cannot understand this structure properly.
On 10/7/2021 6:14 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
jIQam; jIba' 'e' qa' I stand instead of sitting. This is literally I stand; it replaces that I sit. You cannot say jIQam; jIba' qa', because the object of qa' replace cannot directly be a sentence. You need the pronoun to stand in for it. Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is actually the subject of*qa'* in this sentence? I would say that is the first sentence (*jIQam*), something like *That I stand replaces that I sit*. But since sentences as subjects aren't possible in Klingon, I cannot understand this structure properly.
This is one of those cases of Okrand giving us what appears to be a fixed expression that doesn't follow the rules. I'm not sure it makes sense to ask what the subject of *qa'* is here. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
This is one of those cases of Okrand giving us what appears to be a fixed expression that doesn't follow the rules. I'm not sure it makes sense to ask what the subject of qa' is here.
Ok, thank you! I guess that's similar to what happens with the expression *qar'a'*. By the way, thinking of another fixed expression, *tu'lu'*: I know Okrand compared it to English *there's* referring to plural, you were discussing that some weeks ago. But since I'm not an English native speaker, I don't know know how acceptable this use is in formal texts. Or in other words: when I write a formal text in Klingon, should I use *lutu'lu'* for a plural object, or is the form *tu'lu'* also acceptable?
On 10/7/2021 10:03 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
By the way, thinking of another fixed expression,*tu'lu'*: I know Okrand compared it to English *there's* referring to plural, you were discussing that some weeks ago. But since I'm not an English native speaker, I don't know know how acceptable this use is in formal texts. Or in other words: when I write a formal text in Klingon, should I use *lutu'lu'* for a plural object, or is the form *tu'lu'* also acceptable?
It appears that *tu'lu'* is also a fixed expression. You can say things like *Dujmey tu'lu'*/There are ships./ I don't remember Okrand comparing English /there's/ referring to a plural noun. You wouldn't do this in formal English, and even in casual conversation saying something like /there's ships in orbit/ might be noticed, though it's unlikely anyone but a stickler would comment on it. I don't think Klingon *tu'lu'* in reference to a plural noun can only be used informally. It is even used this way without comment when we are introduced to it *(naDev puqpu' tu'lu').* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
(ghunchu'wI' [date?]): At qep'a' loSDIch "Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as the Klingon version of “whom“ got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction [from Okrand]. {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} IS grammatical, but the {lu-} is more often left off. (charghwI' [date?]): {lutu'lu'} does NOT translate as “whom” in any way at all. It is just that in English, most people use the word “who” when formally they should be using “whom”, much like most Klingons use the word {tu'lu'} when they should be using {lutu'lu'}. In other words, the more formally correct sentence is {tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} though most Klingons most of the time would say {tlhInganpu' tu'lu'}. See also “Common Errors: The Case of {lu-}“ (KGT pp. 168-172) – although Okrand didn’t mention {lutu’lu’}. Some excerpts: Among the more tolerated grammatical errors is one involving the pronominal prefix {lu-}, whose use is rather complex. In colloquial Klingon, however, it is sometimes not used in instances in which grammar books would say it is required. <…> If the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'} (phonetically similar, but unrelated to the prefix) is used, indicating that someone or something unknown or unstated performs the action, things get a little more complicated. <…> If the indefinite subject suffix {–lu'} (phonetically similar, but unrelated to the prefix) is used, indicating that someone or something unknown or unstated performs the action, things get a little more complicated. <…> Except in formal situations, however, the omission of {lu-} in such cases is often overlooked. Though technically an error, and jarring to many Klingons' ears, it causes no confusion as to the intended meaning of the sentence. It is important to note that this does not mean that the use of {lu-} is optional; it is left off only under specific conditions. Klingon grammarians refer to the rule that governs the use of pronominal prefixes as the rule of {rom} (literally, "accord"). Grammarians of Federation Standard and many Earth languages call the phenomenon “agreement." Thus, in the case of Klingon, the prefix used must "agree" with the noun to which it refers; if the object noun is plural, for example, the prefix must be one that is used with plural objects. Agreeing is not a trait typically associated with Klingon nature, however, and apparently, at least under certain circumstances, this may extend to grammar as well. As with anything, it depends on context and audience. Among many native English speakers the hyper-correct -- some would say “overly pedantic” -- use of “whom” is very annoying and considered elitist (even in academia, especially these days). One can only imagine how a group of Klingon warriors would react to such behavior. -- Voragh _________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel On 10/7/2021 10:03 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de<mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote: By the way, thinking of another fixed expression, *tu'lu'*: I know Okrand compared it to English *there's* referring to plural, you were discussing that some weeks ago. But since I'm not an English native speaker, I don't know know how acceptable this use is in formal texts. Or in other words: when I write a formal text in Klingon, should I use *lutu'lu'* for a plural object, or is the form *tu'lu'* also acceptable? It appears that tu'lu' is also a fixed expression. You can say things like Dujmey tu'lu' There are ships. I don't remember Okrand comparing English there's referring to a plural noun. You wouldn't do this in formal English, and even in casual conversation saying something like there's ships in orbit might be noticed, though it's unlikely anyone but a stickler would comment on it. I don't think Klingon tu'lu' in reference to a plural noun can only be used informally. It is even used this way without comment when we are introduced to it (naDev puqpu' tu'lu'). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/trimboli.name__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!s30RljJUcPEtBKVA-KYfX8xsvJHWVqZQUI1DKJvRwCRNjTew1r5gNDFEoRaA8UK5AUM$>
SuStel:
I don't remember Okrand comparing English /there's/ referring to a plural noun. You wouldn't do this in formal English, and even in casual conversation saying something like /there's ships in orbit/ might be noticed, though it's unlikely anyone but a stickler would comment on it.
It was in a message forwarded by Qov where Okrand wrote: "This kind of parallels what's going on in English these days (at least in the US -- I don't know about Canada or the UK) where "there's" is often used regardless of whether what follows is singular or plural: - There's no tomatoes in the store. " Read full quote here: http://klingon.wiki/En/ThereIs -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com
Thanks for the quotation. Lieven & De'vId, is there similar confusion in colloquial or regional German between "es gibt" and "es geben"? For that matter, are there any contractions of verb forms at all? There are in Yiddish, cf. for example https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/48848424/contractions-in-yiddish Voragh ------------------------------Original Message------------------------------ From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of Lieven L. Litaer SuStel:
I don't remember Okrand comparing English /there's/ referring to a plural noun. You wouldn't do this in formal English, and even in casual conversation saying something like /there's ships in orbit/ might be noticed, though it's unlikely anyone but a stickler would comment on it.
It was in a message forwarded by Qov where Okrand wrote: "This kind of parallels what's going on in English these days (at least in the US -- I don't know about Canada or the UK) where "there's" is often used regardless of whether what follows is singular or plural: - There's no tomatoes in the store. " Read full quote here: http://klingon.wiki/En/ThereIs
My own opinion, and not based on any specific canon or instruction, is that you should always try to use the {lu-} prefix when appropriate, including for {lutu'lu'}, but that you shouldn't worry about it if you forget it somewhere (even if it's a formal situation) and shouldn't bother to correct others when they leave it off. janSIy ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of luis.chaparro@web.de <luis.chaparro@web.de> Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:03 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {'e' qa'} "instead of" with quotations
This is one of those cases of Okrand giving us what appears to be a fixed expression that doesn't follow the rules. I'm not sure it makes sense to ask what the subject of qa' is here.
Ok, thank you! I guess that's similar to what happens with the expression *qar'a'*. By the way, thinking of another fixed expression, *tu'lu'*: I know Okrand compared it to English *there's* referring to plural, you were discussing that some weeks ago. But since I'm not an English native speaker, I don't know know how acceptable this use is in formal texts. Or in other words: when I write a formal text in Klingon, should I use *lutu'lu'* for a plural object, or is the form *tu'lu'* also acceptable? _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 07.10.2021 um 17:22 schrieb janSIy .:
My own opinion, and not based on any specific canon or instruction, is that you should always try to use the {lu-} prefix when appropriate,
That's a pattern I also try to use. I know it might be regarded as being pedantic, but it's certainly not wrong to use the {lu-}. It's more like writing "can not" instead of "can't". Both are correct. In addition, I am always happy to use the {lu-} prefix, because it's the only third-person to third-person combination that has a prefix. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Prefix
On Oct 10, 2021, at 02:23, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 07.10.2021 um 17:22 schrieb janSIy .: My own opinion, and not based on any specific canon or instruction, is that you should always try to use the {lu-} prefix when appropriate,
That's a pattern I also try to use. I know it might be regarded as being pedantic, but it's certainly not wrong to use the {lu-}. It's more like writing "can not" instead of "can't". Both are correct.
Now I am imagining a Klingon Soong-type android that always uses {lu-}, and maybe also does not use clipped Klingon: {qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH!}, {wIy yIcha'}, etc. And by always, I mean not always, because Data was never actually consistent with that either, even in some episodes where that behavior was specifically called out in the plot.
For those unfamiliar with the idiom {‘e’ qa’} “instead of”, it was revealed at qep’a’ 2018: (qep'a' 2018): This is expressed idiomatically using the phrase {‘e’ qa’} “it replaces”… Examples: ‘awje’ vItlhutlh; HIq vItlhutlh ‘e’ qa’ I drink root beer instead of liquor (literally: “I drink root beer; it replaces that I drink liquor“). jIQam; jIba’ ‘e’ qa’ I stand rather than sit or I’ll stand instead of sitting (literally: “I stand; it replaces that I sit“). In everyday speech, shortcuts are often taken: ‘awje’ vItlhutlh; HIq (‘e’) qa’ I drink root beer instead of liquor (literally: “I drink root beer; it replaces liquor“). Or in response to the question {HIq Datlhutlh DaneH’a’?}, one might say simply {‘awje’; HIq (‘e’) qa’} “rootbeer instead of liquor” (literally: “root beer; it replaces liquor”). In the last two examples, the use of {‘e’} is optional. It’s grammatically not needed, but because of the common use of the {‘e’ qa’} construction, it’s sometimes heard anyway. More examples of {qa’} “replace” were seen in Klingon Monopoly (MKE): Quj wa'DIch MONOPOLY Huch nav qa' tlhIngan QaS Klingon forces replace original Monopoly bills. (MKE) CHANCE 'echletHommey COMMUNITY CHEST 'echletHommey je qa’ quv 'echletHommey vIq 'echletHommey je Combat and Honor cards replace Chance and Community Chest cards. (MKE) Quj wa'DIch juH qachmey mebpa'mey je qa' raQmey chu' monmey chu' je Custom Outposts and Capitals replace original Houses and Hotels. (MKE) Voragh _______________________________________________________________ From: mayqel qunen'oS So, similarly, wouldn't the following be correct too? < HeD > jatlhpu'; < HIv > jatlhpu' 'e' qa' instead of saying "attack" he said "retreat" Of course, one could argue that the {'e'} of the {'e' qa'} isn't the "classic" {'e'} of a sao, but if that's the case, then even better, right?
participants (7)
-
Hugh Son puqloD -
janSIy . -
Lieven L. Litaer -
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel