quv, quv, quv Hurghchu'ghach joHma'
melkor quS'a' luDechtaH balrogpu'.. 'ej ngay'Daj luSIQlaHbe'mo', mInDu'chaj velmeH, telDu'chaj lo'. 'ej melkor ngay' lujemtaHvIS balrogpu', wa' balrogvaD jachtaH latlh balrog: quv, quv, quv Hurghchu'ghach joHma', melkor ! ~ m. qunen'oS tera' joHna', melkor quvmoHjaj tlhuHbogh Hoch
On 4/12/2019 6:21 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
melkor quS'a' luDechtaH balrogpu'..
'ej ngay'Daj luSIQlaHbe'mo', mInDu'chaj velmeH, telDu'chaj lo'.
telDu' ghajbe' balrog!!! :D https://www.google.com/search?q=balrog+wings&oq=balrog+wings&aqs=chrome..69i... -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
vaj, SuStel, qagheljaj.. chay' mInDu'chaj vel balrogpu' ? qech qechmey joq Daghaj'a' ? ~ m. qunen'oS
On 4/12/2019 8:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
vaj, SuStel, qagheljaj..
chay' mInDu'chaj vel balrogpu' ? qech qechmey joq Daghaj'a' ?
wa' balrog Del /Qebmey joH:/ meQtaHbogh QIb ghaH. balrog woch law' loD woch woch rap. lung, ghargh, veqlargh joq rurbe'. tlhapragh rurbe'. qulDaj chu'Ha'DI' Gandalf, vItlhchoH QIb. tamchu' balrog; beybe'. 'ej telDu' ghajbe'bej! -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Let me ask you something, with regards to grammar.. When I wrote the {SuStel, qagheljaj}, at this sentence, what is "SuStel" ? The object of {qagheljaj}, or is it direct address ? Or is it both ? ~ m. qunen'oS exposure to non-canonic sentences left me scarred and deformed, but my resolve has never been greater !
On 4/12/2019 8:53 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Let me ask you something, with regards to grammar..
When I wrote the {SuStel, qagheljaj}, at this sentence, what is "SuStel" ?
The object of {qagheljaj}, or is it direct address ? Or is it both ?
It is direct address, not an object. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Since you gave a comma, anyone familiar with European punctuation would likely instinctively parse it as a direct address. And likely the “you” of the statement since you’re addressing SuStel directly. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 12, 2019, at 08:53, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Let me ask you something, with regards to grammar..
When I wrote the {SuStel, qagheljaj}, at this sentence, what is "SuStel" ?
The object of {qagheljaj}, or is it direct address ? Or is it both ?
~ m. qunen'oS exposure to non-canonic sentences left me scarred and deformed, but my resolve has never been greater ! _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
hmm.. Interesting.. So, if I removed the comma, writing {SuStel qagheljaj}, then would it stop being direct address and turn into an object ? ~ m. qunen'oS ca'non holy ca'non
No. Punctuation or not, the object of the verb is SoH, not Sustel. Proper nouns are third-person. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: mayqel qunen'oS Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:06 AM To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] quv, quv, quv Hurghchu'ghach joHma' hmm.. Interesting.. So, if I removed the comma, writing {SuStel qagheljaj}, then would it stop being direct address and turn into an object ? ~ m. qunen'oS ca'non holy ca'non
No. Punctuation or not, the object of the verb is SoH, not Sustel. Proper nouns are third-person. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: mayqel qunen'oS Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:06 AM To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] quv, quv, quv Hurghchu'ghach joHma' hmm.. Interesting.. So, if I removed the comma, writing {SuStel qagheljaj}, then would it stop being direct address and turn into an object ? ~ m. qunen'oS ca'non holy ca'non
Syntactically I don’t know wha dropping the comma and making a proper name into the direct object would mean — names as second-person DO’s isn’t part of the Klingon grammar AFAIK. I agree with SuStel, that a proper name can’t be a second person DO, it has to be apposition or direct address; but maybe Klingon has rules for that which matlh hasn’t given us. Semantically, I’d read it as if the comma was there. Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 12, 2019, at 09:06, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
hmm.. Interesting..
So, if I removed the comma, writing {SuStel qagheljaj}, then would it stop being direct address and turn into an object ?
~ m. qunen'oS ca'non holy ca'non _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Note that Klingon, as we know it, is a spoken language with a written language that Maltz has not deciphered for us. The Romanized alphabet we use is a phonetic representation of what is spoken, as is the punctuation. So far as we know pIqaD has no punctuation. So, we can argue about the change of meaning if we omit a comma, but in doing so, it’s a purely academic argument, since Klingon doesn’t really have commas. We impose commas on what we write and give meaning to those commas. There are no commas in the written Klingon in TKD. There are no question marks. All questions in Klingon are marked by grammatical markers or fixed phrasing among the words. We feel more comfortable when we add question marks because we like punctuation. Similarly, commas can disambiguate which clause a noun between two verbs is participating in, but that’s just something we made up. Maltz never told us that. So, we shouldn’t get too hung up on how a sentence would be reinterpreted IF WE DROPPED THE COMMA. Because there are no commas in Klingon, so far as we know. We just add them for clarity, because in the languages we are more accustomed to, that’s what commas do. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Apr 12, 2019, at 9:26 AM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
Syntactically I don’t know wha dropping the comma and making a proper name into the direct object would mean — names as second-person DO’s isn’t part of the Klingon grammar AFAIK. I agree with SuStel, that a proper name can’t be a second person DO, it has to be apposition or direct address; but maybe Klingon has rules for that which matlh hasn’t given us.
Semantically, I’d read it as if the comma was there.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 12, 2019, at 09:06, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
hmm.. Interesting..
So, if I removed the comma, writing {SuStel qagheljaj}, then would it stop being direct address and turn into an object ?
~ m. qunen'oS ca'non holy ca'non _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI', It should also be noted that the punctuation system as used in written English is generally derived from spoken English; and can be (and often is) used a set of "performance instructions". I would go so far as to argue that apposition in Klingon can be done quite easily in spoken Klingon (while we don't have "rules" for it, the intent can still be clearly communicated) the same way that we do apposition in spoken English. Using common punctuation I can even clearly communicate the spoken difference: {DuraS vav yIQoy.} vs {DuraS, vav, yIQoy} vs {DuraS, vav: yIQoy}. By the use of the punctuation you can clearly tell that different things are intended; and (based on dual-coding theory and semiotic conditioning) I'd be willing to bet that you read each one with a different pacing as well. So, while the use of modern English punctuation isn't actually part of Klingon, it provides the Klingonist with a convenient way to encode aspects of pacing and phrasing that we lack an alternative way to communicate (in absence of clarification from Maltz). The dropping of a comma does change communicated intent, and is thus important because it is a vital part of Klingon as it is used to communicate within the community. --jevreH On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:34 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Note that Klingon, as we know it, is a spoken language with a written language that Maltz has not deciphered for us. The Romanized alphabet we use is a phonetic representation of what is spoken, as is the punctuation. So far as we know pIqaD has no punctuation.
So, we can argue about the change of meaning if we omit a comma, but in doing so, it’s a purely academic argument, since Klingon doesn’t really have commas. We impose commas on what we write and give meaning to those commas. There are no commas in the written Klingon in TKD. There are no question marks. All questions in Klingon are marked by grammatical markers or fixed phrasing among the words. We feel more comfortable when we add question marks because we like punctuation. Similarly, commas can disambiguate which clause a noun between two verbs is participating in, but that’s just something we made up. Maltz never told us that.
So, we shouldn’t get too hung up on how a sentence would be reinterpreted IF WE DROPPED THE COMMA.
Because there are no commas in Klingon, so far as we know. We just add them for clarity, because in the languages we are more accustomed to, that’s what commas do.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Apr 12, 2019, at 9:26 AM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
Syntactically I don’t know wha dropping the comma and making a proper name into the direct object would mean — names as second-person DO’s isn’t part of the Klingon grammar AFAIK. I agree with SuStel, that a proper name can’t be a second person DO, it has to be apposition or direct address; but maybe Klingon has rules for that which matlh hasn’t given us.
Semantically, I’d read it as if the comma was there.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 12, 2019, at 09:06, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
hmm.. Interesting..
So, if I removed the comma, writing {SuStel qagheljaj}, then would it stop being direct address and turn into an object ?
~ m. qunen'oS ca'non holy ca'non _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
SuStel:
telDu' ghajbe' balrog!!
SuStel, ngoDvam vIqelpu'.. ghIq vIqelqa'pu', 'ej ghIq vIqelqa'pu'.. wa'DIch jIQIlchoH; 'a, Do', tagha', ghu'vam qay' vIjunmeH, latlh DuH vItu'ta': latlh 'u'Daq, 'u' DopDaq, telDu' ghajbejqu' balrogpu' !!! hehehe ! ~ m. qunen'oS In Ca'NoN we trust !
On 4/16/2019 6:30 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
latlh 'u'Daq, 'u' DopDaq, telDu' ghajbejqu' balrogpu' !!!
Peter Jackson 'u'Daq telDu' ghaj balrog/mey./ Tolkien 'u'Daq telDu' bejbe'bej balrog/pu'./ Jackson balrog rurbe'chu' Tolkien balrog. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 4/16/2019 9:32 AM, SuStel wrote:
Tolkien 'u'Daq telDu' _*/bej/*_be'bej balrog/pu'./
/ghaj/ vIghItlhHa'ba'pu'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin