I was thinking back to a previous argument about whether a sentence-as-object construction can itself be considered a "sentence" for when a rule in Klingon works on sentences. I went through some old text by Okrand and found this message: (1) You suggested translating "Do you think it's possible for a Klingon to feel love for a Ferengi?" as: verenganvaD bang HotmeH tlhIngan qIt 'e' DaQub'a'? The end of the sentence is fine. The correct way to say "Do you think that...?" is ... 'e' DaQub'a'? ('e' is "that," referring to something that precedes it in the sentence or in the discussion; DaQub'a' is "do you think it?"). http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1996-12-12b-news.txt&q=sentence *'e' DaQub'a'* is here referred to by Okrand as "the end of the sentence," and *'e'* refers to "something that precedes it in the sentence or in the discussion." We know *'e'* refers to the previous "sentence" of the construction, so the "sentence" that Okrand is referring to must be the entire construction. Okrand later refers to the entire construction as a sentence again. In another post, Okrand gave the sentence *tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh 'e' vISIv* /I wonder if you speak Klingon./ He goes on to say In English, this means something like "I'm surprised that you speak Klingon" or "I don't understand how it can be that you speak Klingon," but this is not what the Klingon sentence means. The Klingon sentence means something more like "I am curious about whether you speak Klingon." http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1997-07-01-news.txt&q=sentence Again, he has called the entire thing a sentence. He then refers to "such sentences": "One other verb that can be used in the V slot in such sentences is Hon 'doubt'" (the "V slot" is the second sentence). Then he goes whole hog and talks about sentences within sentences: "I'll return on another occasion to the question of whether the sentence preceding the 'e' in such sentences can be a question." I haven't done a complete search, but I feel pretty confident that we can think of SAOs as sentences. They are "complex sentences," as named in the parent section of SAOs in TKD. Exactly how complicated the second sub-sentence is supposed to be and the exact placement of adverbials and dependent clauses might still be imperfectly resolved, of course. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
It seems that Okrand switches back and forth on this one. In TKD he clearly defines them as two sentences and repeats that convention multiple times throughout that section: "Klingon has two special pronouns, 'e' and net, which refer to the *previous sentence* as a whole" "What is a single sentence in English is often* two sentences* in Klingon." "This sentence is actually* two*:" "The pronoun 'e' refers to the *previous sentence*, We kill prisoners." "The* two sentences* here are:" "The past tense of the translation (I saw...) comes from the verb in the* first sentence*" "When the verb of the *second sentence*" "the* first sentence* here is qama'pu' DIHoH" "The *second sentence* is net Sov" "When the verb of the *second sentence* is neH" Maybe it's a "complex sentence" made of "two sentences", so ultimately both points of view would be true. I can try to remember to ask Okrand about this at the qep'a'. qurgh On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:22 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I was thinking back to a previous argument about whether a sentence-as-object construction can itself be considered a "sentence" for when a rule in Klingon works on sentences. I went through some old text by Okrand and found this message:
(1) You suggested translating "Do you think it's possible for a Klingon to feel love for a Ferengi?" as: verenganvaD bang HotmeH tlhIngan qIt 'e' DaQub'a'? The end of the sentence is fine. The correct way to say "Do you think that...?" is ... 'e' DaQub'a'? ('e' is "that," referring to something that precedes it in the sentence or in the discussion; DaQub'a' is "do you think it?").
http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1996-12-12b-news.txt&q=sentence
*'e' DaQub'a'* is here referred to by Okrand as "the end of the sentence," and *'e'* refers to "something that precedes it in the sentence or in the discussion." We know *'e'* refers to the previous "sentence" of the construction, so the "sentence" that Okrand is referring to must be the entire construction. Okrand later refers to the entire construction as a sentence again.
In another post, Okrand gave the sentence *tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh 'e' vISIv* *I wonder if you speak Klingon.* He goes on to say
In English, this means something like "I'm surprised that you speak Klingon" or "I don't understand how it can be that you speak Klingon," but this is not what the Klingon sentence means. The Klingon sentence means something more like "I am curious about whether you speak Klingon."
http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1997-07-01-news.txt&q=sentence
Again, he has called the entire thing a sentence. He then refers to "such sentences": "One other verb that can be used in the V slot in such sentences is Hon 'doubt'" (the "V slot" is the second sentence). Then he goes whole hog and talks about sentences within sentences: "I'll return on another occasion to the question of whether the sentence preceding the 'e' in such sentences can be a question."
I haven't done a complete search, but I feel pretty confident that we can think of SAOs as sentences. They are "complex sentences," as named in the parent section of SAOs in TKD. Exactly how complicated the second sub-sentence is supposed to be and the exact placement of adverbials and dependent clauses might still be imperfectly resolved, of course.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/9/2017 2:45 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
It seems that Okrand switches back and forth on this one. In TKD he clearly defines them as two sentences and repeats that convention multiple times throughout that section:
Oh sure. I'm not saying that an SAO isn't two sentences. It clearly is. I'm saying that it's a sentence composed of sentences. It's both one sentence and two. I'm not interested in what the "right" terminology is here, just whether SAOs as whole entities have the properties of sentences. The exact properties of complex sentences of any given type are not revealed by making this statement, but it opens the possibility of things like attaching relative clauses to SAOs or adding adverbials, syntactic nouns, or time expressions to the front of them, and in all cases referring to the SAO as a whole, rather than just one part of it. For instance, Captain Klaa's utterance *reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH* /I've always wanted to fight a Federation ship/ becomes perfectly reasonable without any special grammatical exceptions if we simply look at it as *reH [DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH],* where the brackets delineate a sentence, not just a "construction." You can put adverbials at the beginning of sentences and other verbal clauses. If you can't call that a sentence, you have to explain why you can add *reH* to the front of it, or else you've got *[reH DIvI' Duj vISuv] [vIneH]*/I want to always fight a Federation ship,/ where the brackets delineate the first and second sentences, and the meaning is wrong. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 09.06.2017 um 21:03 schrieb SuStel:
Oh sure. I'm not saying that an SAO isn't two sentences. It clearly is. I'm saying that it's a sentence composed of sentences. It's both one sentence and two.
Since a verb using a sentence as object creates a new sentence, I think it's very clear that such a SAO-sentence can be the SAO in another sentence. {targh HoH vav DaneH 'e' vIyaj net Sov.} One knows that I understand you want your father to kill the targ. [[[[targh HoH vav] DaneH] 'e' vIyaj] net Sov.] [[[[the father kills the targ] you want that] I understand that] one knows it] -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/SentenceAsObject
On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 21:58 +0200, Lieven wrote:
Am 09.06.2017 um 21:03 schrieb SuStel:
Oh sure. I'm not saying that an SAO isn't two sentences. It clearly is. I'm saying that it's a sentence composed of sentences. It's both one sentence and two.
Since a verb using a sentence as object creates a new sentence, I think it's very clear that such a SAO-sentence can be the SAO in another sentence.
{targh HoH vav DaneH 'e' vIyaj net Sov.} One knows that I understand you want your father to kill the targ.
[[[[targh HoH vav] DaneH] 'e' vIyaj] net Sov.] [[[[the father kills the targ] you want that] I understand that] one knows it]
But now add an adverbial to each sentence. - DloraH
Am 10.06.2017 um 18:08 schrieb DloraH:
On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 21:58 +0200, Lieven wrote:
Am 09.06.2017 um 21:03 schrieb SuStel:
Oh sure. I'm not saying that an SAO isn't two sentences. It clearly is. I'm saying that it's a sentence composed of sentences. It's both one sentence and two.
Since a verb using a sentence as object creates a new sentence, I think it's very clear that such a SAO-sentence can be the SAO in another sentence.
{targh HoH vav DaneH 'e' vIyaj net Sov.} One knows that I understand you want your father to kill the targ.
[[[[targh HoH vav] DaneH] 'e' vIyaj] net Sov.] [[[[the father kills the targ] you want that] I understand that] one knows it]
But now add an adverbial to each sentence.
That sounds like a true challenge. Theoretically, it should be nested like macros do in software, but that would look very strange: {reH targh HoH vav} "father always kills targ" DaH {reH targh HoH vav} 'e' vISov Now I know that "father always kills targ" I'm not sure that is based on anything canon. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
Isn't that why {DaH} goes before {'e'}, if that's the clause it's meant to modify? reH targh HoH vav DaH 'e' vISov. lay'tel SIvten On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 10.06.2017 um 18:08 schrieb DloraH:
On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 21:58 +0200, Lieven wrote:
Am 09.06.2017 um 21:03 schrieb SuStel:
Oh sure. I'm not saying that an SAO isn't two sentences. It clearly is. I'm saying that it's a sentence composed of sentences. It's both one sentence and two.
Since a verb using a sentence as object creates a new sentence, I think it's very clear that such a SAO-sentence can be the SAO in another sentence.
{targh HoH vav DaneH 'e' vIyaj net Sov.} One knows that I understand you want your father to kill the targ.
[[[[targh HoH vav] DaneH] 'e' vIyaj] net Sov.] [[[[the father kills the targ] you want that] I understand that] one knows it]
But now add an adverbial to each sentence.
That sounds like a true challenge. Theoretically, it should be nested like macros do in software, but that would look very strange:
{reH targh HoH vav} "father always kills targ"
DaH {reH targh HoH vav} 'e' vISov Now I know that "father always kills targ"
I'm not sure that is based on anything canon.
-- 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
On 6/10/2017 4:47 PM, Lieven wrote:
Am 10.06.2017 um 18:08 schrieb DloraH:
On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 21:58 +0200, Lieven wrote:
Am 09.06.2017 um 21:03 schrieb SuStel:
Oh sure. I'm not saying that an SAO isn't two sentences. It clearly is. I'm saying that it's a sentence composed of sentences. It's both one sentence and two.
Since a verb using a sentence as object creates a new sentence, I think it's very clear that such a SAO-sentence can be the SAO in another sentence.
{targh HoH vav DaneH 'e' vIyaj net Sov.} One knows that I understand you want your father to kill the targ.
[[[[targh HoH vav] DaneH] 'e' vIyaj] net Sov.] [[[[the father kills the targ] you want that] I understand that] one knows it]
But now add an adverbial to each sentence.
That sounds like a true challenge. Theoretically, it should be nested like macros do in software, but that would look very strange:
{reH targh HoH vav} "father always kills targ"
DaH {reH targh HoH vav} 'e' vISov Now I know that "father always kills targ"
I'm not sure that is based on anything canon.
Your sentence would properly be *reH targh HoH vav DaH 'e' vISov.* One issue you'll often run into is that you have to be able to tell that the adverbial/syntactic noun/time expression at the front applies to the entire construction, rather than just the first sub-sentence. We have an example of this in /paq'batlh:/*ghIq pum 'e' mev*//which only makes sense as /then, he stops falling./ The *ghIq* applies to *pum 'e' mev,* not just the *pum.* The sentence could have been written *pum ghIq 'e' mev,* but for some reason it wasn't. My guess is that *pum 'e' mev* was so small and tightly integrated it was thought of as a single unit. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
For instance, Captain Klaa's utterance reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH I've always wanted to fight a Federation ship becomes perfectly reasonable without any special grammatical exceptions if we simply look at it as reH [DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH], where the brackets delineate a sentence, not just a "construction."
It is already an exception, as {neH} does not use the object {'e'}. It has occasionally been suggested that the "previous sentence" is the actual object of {neH}. I think that is no more of a stretch than what you propose. I do see the distinction between generalizing and making exceptions. I'm just not sure it is worth generalizing "all SAO constructions are sentences" in order to handle the Klaa example, when a small codicil on {neH} works to explain both the placement of {reH} and the lack of {'e'}. I think it is uncontroversial to call complex sentences made with conjunctions "sentences". Do we have any examples of such sentences where an adverbial or subordinate clause applies to the entire thing, or do they attach to only one main verb? The comparison isn't perfectly applicable to a SAO, but it could be instructive. -- ghunchu'wI'
A terminological note: A compound sentence (in English) is one consisting of two or more independent clauses joined by a conjunction. A complex sentence has an independent clause and a dependent one. Compound-complex sentences have both. lay'tel SIvten On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:12 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
For instance, Captain Klaa's utterance *reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH* *I've always wanted to fight a Federation ship* becomes perfectly reasonable without any special grammatical exceptions if we simply look at it as *reH [DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH],* where the brackets delineate a sentence, not just a "construction."
It is already an exception, as {neH} does not use the object {'e'}. It has occasionally been suggested that the "previous sentence" is the actual object of {neH}. I think that is no more of a stretch than what you propose.
I do see the distinction between generalizing and making exceptions. I'm just not sure it is worth generalizing "all SAO constructions are sentences" in order to handle the Klaa example, when a small codicil on {neH} works to explain both the placement of {reH} and the lack of {'e'}.
I think it is uncontroversial to call complex sentences made with conjunctions "sentences". Do we have any examples of such sentences where an adverbial or subordinate clause applies to the entire thing, or do they attach to only one main verb? The comparison isn't perfectly applicable to a SAO, but it could be instructive.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/10/2017 1:12 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
For instance, Captain Klaa's utterance *reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH* /I've always wanted to fight a Federation ship/ becomes perfectly reasonable without any special grammatical exceptions if we simply look at it as *reH [DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH],* where the brackets delineate a sentence, not just a "construction."
It is already an exception, as {neH} does not use the object {'e'}. It has occasionally been suggested that the "previous sentence" is the actual object of {neH}. I think that is no more of a stretch than what you propose.
*neH* is an exception that is given to us as canon. The previous sentence directly being the object of the latter sentence is our conjecture invented purely to explain the adverbial in Klaa's line.
I do see the distinction between generalizing and making exceptions. I'm just not sure it is worth generalizing "all SAO constructions are sentences" in order to handle the Klaa example, when a small codicil on {neH} works to explain both the placement of {reH} and the lack of {'e'}.
An SAO is a "complex sentence." Okrand has called them "sentences." They're sentences. And don't presume to tell me my motivations. I'm not interested in making up rules to explain one line. The placement of adverbials, syntactic nouns, and other expressions on SAOs comes up again and again when trying to use Klingon, and knowing whether SAOs are able to do the things other sentences can do is essential.
I think it is uncontroversial to call complex sentences made with conjunctions "sentences". Do we have any examples of such sentences where an adverbial or subordinate clause applies to the entire thing, or do they attach to only one main verb? The comparison isn't perfectly applicable to a SAO, but it could be instructive.
Complex sentences are not just compound sentences. 6. Syntax 6.2. Complex sentences 6.2.1. Compound sentences 6.2.2. Subordinate clauses 6.2.3. Relative clauses 6.2.4. Purpose clauses 6.2.5. Sentences as objects Sentences as object are complex sentences. Hence they are sentences. Comparatives and superlatives are not described as complex sentences in TKD. /But neither are they called sentences./ They are called constructions and formulas, but not sentences. Do you claim they are not sentences? They can even have "header" words put on them, as shown in our ever-useful *qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.* We also have adverbials: *reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS.* They're sentences. TKD calls "to be" constructions sentences in TKD, even though they do not appear under either "basic sentences" or "complex sentences." Compound sentences are described thus in TKD: "Two sentences may be joined together to form a longer compound sentence. Both sentences must be able to stand alone as properly formed sentences." Now see this from KGT: *juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob*/I ask you to lead us as commander of this ship./ In order for this canonical utterance to be legal according to TKD, *juDev* and *Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob* must both be "properly formed sentences." Thus, the SAO is a properly formed sentence. There are more of these basic-sentence-conunction-SAOs in /paq'batlh./ THEY - ARE - SENTENCES. We have an example of what you asked for in /paq'batlh/ as well: an adverbial that applies to an entire SAO rather than just one of its component sentences. ghIq pum 'e' mev bIQtIq Doq legh bIQtIq nguvmoH 'Iw Then he sees bright red At the end of his fall It is a river, blood-colored. This isn't to be interpreted /he stops that he then falls/; it means /then, he stops falling./ BECAUSE A SENTENCE-AS-OBJECT CONSTRUCTION IS A SENTENCE. Okrand doesn't go out of his way to avoid calling SAOs (and comparatives and superlatives) sentences. He just didn't happen to use the word in his brief paragraphs about them in TKD. He casually calls them sentences elsewhere, as if it's perfectly obvious that everyone can tell they are sentences, because it IS perfectly obvious. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 6/10/2017 7:51 PM, SuStel wrote:
Compound sentences are described thus in TKD: "Two sentences may be joined together to form a longer compound sentence. Both sentences must be able to stand alone as properly formed sentences." Now see this from KGT: *juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob*/I ask you to lead us as commander of this ship./ In order for this canonical utterance to be legal according to TKD, *juDev* and *Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob* must both be "properly formed sentences."
I'm going to take this one back. The formation is apparently *[juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS] 'e' vItlhob,* which makes a compound sentence the first sentence of the SAO. In compensation, I'll point out an example of using a purpose clause on an SAO: *bIQapqu'meH tar DaSop 'e' DatIvnIS*/to really succeed, you must enjoy eating poison./ This is *bIQapqu'meH [tar DaSop 'e' DatIvnIS],* not *[**bIQapqu'meH tar DaSop] 'e' DatIvnIS/./* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 6/10/2017 8:41 PM, SuStel wrote:
On 6/10/2017 7:51 PM, SuStel wrote:
Compound sentences are described thus in TKD: "Two sentences may be joined together to form a longer compound sentence. Both sentences must be able to stand alone as properly formed sentences." Now see this from KGT: *juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob*/I ask you to lead us as commander of this ship./ In order for this canonical utterance to be legal according to TKD, *juDev* and *Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS 'e' vItlhob* must both be "properly formed sentences."
I'm going to take this one back. The formation is apparently *[juDev 'ej Dujvam ra'wI' DagheS] 'e' vItlhob,* which makes a compound sentence the first sentence of the SAO.
Oh, wait, here's a better one: *Hegh tlhIngan Segh 'ej maHemtaH 'e' wIHech.* This one is clearly *[Hegh tlhIngan Segh] 'ej [maHemtaH 'e' wIHech]* and not *[Hegh tlhIngan Segh 'ej maHemtaH] 'e' wIHech.* Both the first *[Hegh tlhIngan Segn] *and second *[maHemtaH 'e' wIHech]* parts must be properly formed /sentences,/ so *maHemtaH 'e' wIHech* must be a sentence. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
DloraH -
ghunchu'wI' 'utlh -
Lieven -
MorphemeAddict -
qurgh lungqIj -
SuStel