Is there a difference between these two sentences ? {pIj, paqvam vIlaDtaHvIS, jIHagh} {paqvam vIlaDtaHvIS, pIj jIHagh} or between these two: {pIj, paqvammo' jIHagh} {paqvammo', pIj jIHagh} mayqel q
On 10/11/2017 7:11 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Is there a difference between these two sentences ?
{pIj, paqvam vIlaDtaHvIS, jIHagh} {paqvam vIlaDtaHvIS, pIj jIHagh}
or between these two:
{pIj, paqvammo' jIHagh} {paqvammo', pIj jIHagh}
What you're asking is, can Klingons set aside parenthetical phrases? /Often, while I'm reading this book, I laugh./ Notice that I set the while-clause apart from the sentence with commas. This indicates an interruption of my thought. I would not let it run on: /Often while I'm reading this book I laugh./ Do Klingons do this? Probably. Everyday Klingon speech is probably a lot less formal than we teach on this list. I don't think we've seen this particular thing being done before, though. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
So, if I understand correctly, the grammatically correct sentence is {paq vIlaDtaHvIS, pIj jIHagh}. Right ? Because I was wondering which of these two sentences was right, and which was wrong. Although as I understand, placing the {pIj} right before the {paq vIlaDtaHvIS}, isn't actually wrong, but rather something which would occur more often while speaking as opposed to writing. If I understand correctly your reply, in order to be grammatically correct, the adverb has to be placed right before the verb to which it refers (in our examples the {jIHagh}). Are these conclusions correct ? mayqel q On Oct 11, 2017 16:03, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/11/2017 7:11 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Is there a difference between these two sentences ?
{pIj, paqvam vIlaDtaHvIS, jIHagh} {paqvam vIlaDtaHvIS, pIj jIHagh}
or between these two:
{pIj, paqvammo' jIHagh} {paqvammo', pIj jIHagh}
What you're asking is, can Klingons set aside parenthetical phrases? *Often, while I'm reading this book, I laugh.* Notice that I set the while-clause apart from the sentence with commas. This indicates an interruption of my thought. I would not let it run on: *Often while I'm reading this book I laugh.*
Do Klingons do this? Probably. Everyday Klingon speech is probably a lot less formal than we teach on this list. I don't think we've seen this particular thing being done before, though.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/11/2017 9:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So, if I understand correctly, the grammatically correct sentence is {paq vIlaDtaHvIS, pIj jIHagh}. Right ?
Because I was wondering which of these two sentences was right, and which was wrong. Although as I understand, placing the {pIj} right before the {paq vIlaDtaHvIS}, isn't actually wrong, but rather something which would occur more often while speaking as opposed to writing.
If I understand correctly your reply, in order to be grammatically correct, the adverb has to be placed right before the verb to which it refers (in our examples the {jIHagh}).
Are these conclusions correct ?
Formally, a dependent clause should not split an adverbial from its sentence, so far as we can tell. If you did it anyway I don't think anyone would care. And adverbials are said to come at the front of a sentence, not in front of a verb's object, so who knows? Maybe *paq vIlaDtaHvIS jIHagh* is the sentence, and you can put an adverbial in front of THAT. Focus on that, rather than on what's "right" and "wrong." It's not down to right and wrong. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 10/11/2017 7:11 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Is there a difference between these two sentences ?
Am 11.10.2017 um 15:03 schrieb SuStel:
Do Klingons do this? Probably. Everyday Klingon speech is probably a lot less formal than we teach on this list. I don't think we've seen this particular thing being done before, though.
I'v also been thinking about this lately, and like to ask the question differently: TKD tells us that the adverbial comes at the beginning of a sentence. The question is, how is a sentence defined, or wouldn't it be better to define this as "the adverbial comes at the beginning of a [linguistic-term-here] clause"? paq'batlh has a phrase where the word {DaH} does not appear at the very beginning, but it appears on a spot where it modifies the right verb: {SuvwI' DameH puqloDwI' vIghojHa'moH DaH 'e' vItlhoj} "I see now, I have failed to raise my son a man." instead of going for {DaH [SuvwI' DameH puqloDwI' vIghojHa'moH 'e' vItlhoj]. } mayqel's question can apply to many adverbials: ghorgh bIghungmo' bIHegh? bIghungmo' ghorgh bIHegh? bIpuvtaHvIS qatlh bIbom? qatlh bIpuvtaHvIS bIbom? Is there any canon for this, or at least some linguistic argument for this? I dare not to say that it "feels" right. :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Adverbials
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
TKD tells us that the adverbial comes at the beginning of a sentence. The question is, how is a sentence defined, or wouldn't it be better to define this as "the adverbial comes at the beginning of a [linguistic-term-here] clause"?
The appendix clarifies this to mean that the adverbial comes in front of the object-verb-subject construction, and that the adverbial can be preceded by other elements, such as time stamps. mayqel's question can apply to many adverbials:
ghorgh bIghungmo' bIHegh? bIghungmo' ghorgh bIHegh?
bIpuvtaHvIS qatlh bIbom? qatlh bIpuvtaHvIS bIbom?
Question words aren't technically listed with adverbials, so they might not fall under the same object-verb-subject rule. That said, I can think of at least one example of a question word that goes with the main clause: *potlhbe'chugh yay qatlh pe''eghlu'?*
Am 11.10.2017 um 15:46 schrieb nIqolay Q:
The appendix clarifies this to mean that the adverbial comes in front of the object-verb-subject construction, and that the adverbial can be preceded by other elements, such as time stamps.
I know that. So my question would be, which is the ovs-construction? targh Sop loD = OVS 'e' legh be'Hom. = OVS so these combined: nom targh Sop loD = adverb+OVS QIt 'e' legh be'Hom. = adverb+OVS nom targh Sop loD QIt 'e' legh be'Hom. Right?
of at least one example of a question word that goes with the main clause: *potlhbe'chugh yay qatlh pe''eghlu'?*
Thanks for pointing this out. It stabilizes the theory, at least for the question words. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Adverbial
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I know that. So my question would be, which is the ovs-construction?
targh Sop loD = OVS 'e' legh be'Hom. = OVS
so these combined:
nom targh Sop loD = adverb+OVS QIt 'e' legh be'Hom. = adverb+OVS
nom targh Sop loD QIt 'e' legh be'Hom.
Right?
Makes sense to me, at least grammatically. (I'm not sure *legh* makes sense to use with *QIt*, since seeing isn't a process. *lengchoH* would work though. But that doesn't have anything to do with where the adverbs go.)
participants (4)
-
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel