{vaj} the english "so" and joining multiple {-bogh} phrases by {vaj}
I just read in Merriam-Webster that the English "so" can be either an adverb or a conjunction. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so And there it lists the following examples which show how "so" acts as an adverb: - do you really think so - are you ready? I think so - I didn't like it and I told her so - worked hard and so did she - and so home and to bed - had never been so happy - thought that his share wasn't so big as his brother's - loves her so - can only do so much in a day - you did so do it - I so don't believe you - the witness is biased and so unreliable But now lets see the examples it lists where "so" acts a conjunction: - the acoustics are good, so every note is clear - be quiet so he can sleep - don't want to go, so I won't - so here we are - so what? - so, that's who did it The thing I observe is that the examples of Merriam-Webster where the English "so" functions as a conjunction, are the examples which if I was to translate in Klingon I'd use the {vaj}; but the {vaj} in Klingon is supposed to be an adverb and not a conjunction. On the other hand, I don't think any of the Merriam-Webster examples where "so" acts as an adverb could be translated by the Klingon adverb {vaj}. So, either there's something here which I'm serious misunderstanding, or this is the case of another intentional attempt, to "alienize" a language crawling with terran puns. Anyway, I'll stop here before proceeding to the main dish, in case someone would like to comment anything on the above. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 7/20/2022 9:31 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
The thing I observe is that the examples of Merriam-Webster where the English "so" functions as a conjunction, are the examples which if I was to translate in Klingon I'd use the {vaj}; but the {vaj} in Klingon is supposed to be an adverb and not a conjunction. On the other hand, I don't think any of the Merriam-Webster examples where "so" acts as an adverb could be translated by the Klingon adverb {vaj}.
So, either there's something here which I'm serious misunderstanding, or this is the case of another intentional attempt, to "alienize" a language crawling with terran puns.
The grammar is simply different. In an English sentence like /Be quiet so he can sleep, /you have two independent clauses: /be quiet/ and /he can sleep./ The word /so/ joins them together with a connotation of purpose. In Klingon, there are two ways to translate this. One is *QonglaHmeH ghaH, yItam'eghmoH,* and this is probably the more accurate translation, but this is not what we're talking about. The other way to translate is is *yItam'eghmoH; vaj QonglaH ghaH.* This is two sentences, not one. The *vaj* is not a conjunction: it is an adverbial, telling us the manner in which the action occurs. It tells us that the ability to sleep occurs in the manner of a consequence. An alternative English translation of this Klingon might be /Be quiet! He will be able to sleep as a result./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
The grammar is simply different.
Ok, thanks for clarifying this. And now the main subject of this thread.. Suppose I want to write "weapon which injures and which causes pain"; I will write {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH 'ej 'oy'choHmoHbogh}. But now suppose I want to write "weapon which injures so which it causes pain". (Ok, yes, the English sounds weird). Can I write {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh}? Or do I *have* to place an {'ej} before the {vaj}, thus writing {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH 'ej vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh}? If {vaj} was classified as a conjunction, I'd feel no problem with omitting the {'ej}. But seeing it being classified as an adverb, I get the impression that in such cases (of {-bogh} phrases being joined), it *has* to be preceded by a conjunction. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 7/20/2022 9:59 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
But now suppose I want to write "weapon which injures so which it causes pain". (Ok, yes, the English sounds weird).
Can I write {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh}? Or do I *have* to place an {'ej} before the {vaj}, thus writing {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH 'ej vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh}?
I don't think the combination "so which" makes any sense in the first place. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I don't think the combination "so which" makes any sense in the first place.
Indeed it's weird. I was thinking of a context as for example one saying to another "listen, because I have a weapon which injures, and because it injures it causes pain, beware". Perhaps in that context one could say {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh vIghajmo'}, in order to express that the "hurting" is the result of the "injuring" done by the weapon. Of course, there wouldn't be any (considerable) difference in meaning if one just wrote {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH 'ej 'oy'choHmoHbogh}, and of course one could avoid this altogether by rephrasing. Anyway, I thing that meaning-wise perhaps it wouldn't be a problem writing {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh vIghaj}; and perhaps in spoken Klingon, it would work even better by altering the tone of the voice while saying the {vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh} part. But I think that perhaps it would work better by placing the {'ej} before {vaj} because without it, it would be like writing {rIQchoHmoH 'oy'choHmoHbogh nuH} which would be strange. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 7/20/2022 11:05 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
I was thinking of a context as for example one saying to another "listen, because I have a weapon which injures, and because it injures it causes pain, beware".
This is not a grammatical sentence in English. You've got a subordinate clause /because I have a weapon which injures./ Then you're /and/-ing it with another subordinate clause, /because it injures./ Note that /because it injures it causes pain/ is not a subordinate clause: it is a subordinate clause /(because it injures) /and an independent clause /(it causes pain)./ Then you have the independent clause, /beware./ I think what you have here is your usual habit of splicing sentences inside sentences. It just doesn't work here. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghunchu'wI':
The “adverb” kind of “so” doesn’t match the Klingon {vaj}. Look up “therefore” instead.
Ok, I looked it up, and yes, the English "therefore" matches my understanding of {vaj}. Thanks. SuStel:
I think what you have here is your usual habit of splicing sentences inside sentences. It just doesn't work here.
I rethought all this, and I understood that indeed you're right; I was trying to put one sentence into the other, even while I didn't realize I was trying to do that. But now I started wondering about something else. The way I understand a {-bogh} phrase, it's essentially a "miniature sentence", meaning that in front of it we can have everything that can be in front of the ovs. So far so good. And in the case where we have two {-bogh} phrases joined by a conjunction, then it's like having two "miniature sentences" joined by a conjunction, so -logically- we can have everything that can be in front of the ovs preceding each of the {-bogh} baby sentences. Or just one of them. So, why does the second {-bogh} miniature sentence always need to be understood as a parenthetical sentence? Suppose I write: yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej reH vuQbogh the officer was killed by the singing sword which always fascinates Or yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh the officer was killed by the sword which sings and subsequently vanishes I can understand and "feel" why in the {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH ('ej} vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh} the {vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh} is a parenthetical miniature sentence. But in the singing sword examples I can't feel anything parenthetical in the second {-bogh}. So I guess the question is this: In the case of sentences as the ones already mentioned, is the second {-bogh} phrase to be always understood as a parenthetical phrase? Or the distinction between what is parenthetical and what isn't, is rather based on context instead of whether it's being preceded by an adverb? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 7/21/2022 7:53 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose I write:
yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej reH vuQbogh the officer was killed by the singing sword which always fascinates
Or
yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh the officer was killed by the sword which sings and subsequently vanishes
I can understand and "feel" why in the {rIQchoHmoHbogh nuH ('ej} vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh} the {vaj 'oy'choHmoHbogh} is a parenthetical miniature sentence.
But in the singing sword examples I can't feel anything parenthetical in the second {-bogh}.
So I guess the question is this:
In the case of sentences as the ones already mentioned, is the second {-bogh} phrase to be always understood as a parenthetical phrase? Or the distinction between what is parenthetical and what isn't, is rather based on context instead of whether it's being preceded by an adverb?
Eh? Neither relative clause is parenthetical. Relative clauses appear to be restrictive in Klingon — that is, the meaning of the sentence changes if you drop them. *yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan*/ the singing sword killed the officer/ This doesn't mean "The sword killed the officer (oh, and by the way, the sword also sings)." It means "The sword that is the one that sings killed the officer." The relative clause *bombogh* is restrictive. This doesn't change just because we conjoin relative clauses. *yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej reH ngabbogh */the singing sword that always disappears killed the officer/ This is literally "The sword which sings and which always disappears killed the officer." This doesn't mean "The sword killed the officer (oh, and by the way, it sings and always disappears)." It doesn't even mean "The sword that sings killed the officer (oh, and by the way, the sword always disappears)." It means that the sword that sings and always disappears, that particular sword, killed the officer. It's not talking about any other sword in that sentence. Both relative clauses are restrictive. The problem you're having is with that *ngIq.* That adverbial is trying to pull the disappearing action into a period of time /after/ the sword killed the officer, but you're also trying to use the relative clause to describe the sword that kills the officer. There's nothing ungrammatical about doing this, but you're confusing yourself because you're trying to imagine the sword that disappears in the future being used to kill someone in the past. The *ngIq* is meant to refer back to the killing, but it's conjoined with the singing. One would be quite justified in reading it this way: *yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej ngIq ngabbogh */the singing and then disappearing sword killed the officer/ That is, even though it's obviously not the intention, this would be more naturally understood as a sword that sings and then disappears being used to kill an officer, not as a sword that sings... and then disapears after killing the officer. When you come across problems like this, where what you're saying is grammatical but which is likely to be interpreted in a way different than what you mean, you need to rephrase. Not because you /can't/ say it that way but because you /shouldn't./ *yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan. ngIq ngabpu'. */The singing sword killed the officer. Then it disappeared./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh SuStel: That adverbial is trying to pull the disappearing action into a period of time after the sword killed the officer, but you're also trying to use the relative clause to describe the sword that kills the officer. There's nothing ungrammatical about doing this, but you're confusing yourself because you're trying to imagine the sword that disappears in the future being used to kill someone in the past. The ngIq is meant to refer back to the killing, but it's conjoined with the singing. One would be quite justified in reading it this way:
Ok, this is important. As it seems, there's something here I've been ignoring for years.. (Let's remove the {-pu'} to make this simpler). Up until now, I was under the impression that the *only* thing that {yaS HoH bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh} can mean is "the officer is killed by the sword which sings and then disappears." Meaning that there is a sword which sings and then disappears, and it is that particular sword which kills the officer. But reading your comments, I understand that this sentence can have another meaning too: "the officer is killed by a sword which sings; and after the killing is done this sword disappears". Is my understanding correct? Can the {yaS HoH bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh} have both these meanings? (Of course it isn't something I'd actually use, but -as always- I'm trying to understand how things work). -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 7/22/2022 10:44 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh SuStel: That adverbial is trying to pull the disappearing action into a period of time after the sword killed the officer, but you're also trying to use the relative clause to describe the sword that kills the officer. There's nothing ungrammatical about doing this, but you're confusing yourself because you're trying to imagine the sword that disappears in the future being used to kill someone in the past. The ngIq is meant to refer back to the killing, but it's conjoined with the singing. One would be quite justified in reading it this way:
Ok, this is important. As it seems, there's something here I've been ignoring for years.. (Let's remove the {-pu'} to make this simpler).
Up until now, I was under the impression that the *only* thing that {yaS HoH bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh} can mean is "the officer is killed by the sword which sings and then disappears." Meaning that there is a sword which sings and then disappears, and it is that particular sword which kills the officer.
But reading your comments, I understand that this sentence can have another meaning too: "the officer is killed by a sword which sings; and after the killing is done this sword disappears".
Is my understanding correct?
No. You have read this exactly the opposite of how I intended it. When I said there was nothing ungrammatical about it, that doesn't mean it says what you want it to say. It means that there's nothing wrong with the syntax. I don't think the version with *ngIq* has that *ngIq* in a sensible place. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jul 20, 2022, at 10:00 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
But now suppose I want to write "weapon which injures so which it causes pain".
I realize that you know what you want to mean, but there’s no way to get a coherent meaning out of those English words in that order. I can’t parse your later explanation either, though it’s at least possible to see what you’re trying to say. What you’re trying to say is probably something like “weapon which injures in order to cause pain” or “weapon which causes pain because it injures”. Either of those phrases stretches the limits of Klingon relative clauses. I don’t think it’s worth the effort of writing it in a single sentence — not only because it’s hard to write, but because it’ll be very difficult to *read*. Unless your goal is to produce impenetrable Klingon text, don’t be so eager to look for ways to condense so many ideas with so much disparate grammar into a single Klingon phrase. -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (3)
-
Alan Anderson -
D qunen'oS -
SuStel