Noun-noun constructions with relative clauses
The limits of the weight that a Relative Clause can carry has been deeply explored, and the answer always comes back that if the Relative Clause isn’t easily understood, use two sentences, instead. {DaH be’ leghtaH loD. be’vam paq blahblahblah} or {DaH be’ leghtaH HoD. loDvam paq blahblahblah}. In your wildest dreams, Okrand might explain that in examples like you are imagining, the {-‘e’} belongs to the Relative Clause and not the Noun-Noun construction, so that if you zoom out to the Noun Noun construction, compressing the Relative Clause into its Head Noun, the {-‘e’} is thereby consumed and no longer counts in the Noun-Noun construction, so it doesn’t break the rule. Until that happens, rules is rules, and you can use your construction and maybe be speaking gibberish. Or Klingon. We can’t know. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Oct 31, 2021, at 11:30 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
In a noun-noun construction *noun* actually means *noun phrase*, so that we can have noun-noun constructions with nouns + adjectival verbs or relative clauses, right?
*be' val paq* - the book of the intelligent woman *DaH be' vIleghtaHbogh paq* - the book of the woman I'm seeing now
However, in TKD it's stated that in a noun-noun construction only the second noun can take a Type 5 suffix (well, I suppose it would be better to say *only the last noun*, since noun-noun constructions with multiple nouns / noun-phrases are possible). But since *-'e'* is a Type 5 suffix, how could we disambiguate this sentence?:
*DaH be' leghtaHbogh loD paq* - the book of the man who is seeing the woman now / the book of the woman the man is seeing now
Putting *-'e'* on *be'* or *loD* wouldn't be allowed. Or is there an exception? _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/31/2021 11:30 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
However, in TKD it's stated that in a noun-noun construction only the second noun can take a Type 5 suffix (well, I suppose it would be better to say *only the last noun*, since noun-noun constructions with multiple nouns / noun-phrases are possible). But since *-'e'* is a Type 5 suffix, how could we disambiguate this sentence?: *DaH be' leghtaHbogh loD paq* - the book of the man who is seeing the woman now / the book of the woman the man is seeing now Putting *-'e'* on *be'* or *loD* wouldn't be allowed. Or is there an exception?
Using *-'e'* on the head noun of a relative clause is entirely optional, so if it's blocked by some other rule, just don't use an *-'e'.* If it's absolutely imperative that the listener not be required to work out for themselves whose book it is, don't introduce so many new items in a single sentence. If the woman, the man, or the seeing had been introduced in a prior sentence, it wouldn't have to be repeated here. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you charghwI' and SuStel for your help! SuStel:
Using -'e' on the head noun of a relative clause is entirely optional,
So, if a potentially ambiguous relative clause (not only in a noun-noun construction) is in context clear or if I don't want to disambiguate it for whatever reason, I don't have to place *-'e'* in the head noun (but I can always do it if I want). Have I understood it correctly? By the way, I know there are canonical examples of noun-noun constructions with noun + adjectival verb, but are there any canonical examples with a noun-noun construction containing a noun + relative clause?
On 11/1/2021 10:20 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
Using -'e' on the head noun of a relative clause is entirely optional, So, if a potentially ambiguous relative clause (not only in a noun-noun construction) is in context clear or if I don't want to disambiguate it for whatever reason, I don't have to place *-'e'* in the head noun (but I can always do it if I want). Have I understood it correctly?
Correct.
By the way, I know there are canonical examples of noun-noun constructions with noun + adjectival verb, but are there any canonical examples with a noun-noun construction containing a noun + relative clause?
Yes. *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'*/Romulan hunter-killer probe/ (STK) There are undoubtedly others. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
By the way, I know there are canonical examples of noun-noun constructions with noun + adjectival verb, but are there any canonical examples with a noun-noun construction containing a noun + relative clause? Yes. romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (STK) There are undoubtedly others.
That's a really good example. Thanks again!
By the way, I know there are canonical examples of noun-noun constructions with noun + adjectival verb, but are there any canonical examples with a noun-noun construction containing a noun + relative clause? Yes. romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (STK) There are undoubtedly others.
That's a really good example. Thanks again!
Thinking about that example it just ocurred to me that such a structure could actually be ambiguous. I know it doesn't make much sense, but it *could* also mean *The probe of the Romulan who she / he will find and kill* or *The probe of the Romulans she / he / they will find and kill*. In phrases with this or similar structure, context or, if necessary, rephrasing would clarify which meaning is intended, am I right?
On 11/1/2021 5:15 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
By the way, I know there are canonical examples of noun-noun constructions with noun + adjectival verb, but are there any canonical examples with a noun-noun construction containing a noun + relative clause? Yes. romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (STK) There are undoubtedly others. That's a really good example. Thanks again! Thinking about that example it just ocurred to me that such a structure could actually be ambiguous. I know it doesn't make much sense, but it*could* also mean*The probe of the Romulan who she / he will find and kill* or*The probe of the Romulans she / he / they will find and kill*. In phrases with this or similar structure, context or, if necessary, rephrasing would clarify which meaning is intended, am I right?
Yes, it's ambiguous, but it refers to a recognized device, so presumably anybody who understands what it is will also understand what you mean when you say it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
For that matter, it could mean “The probe which finds and kills Romulans.” We have similar ambiguity in English. If we said someone was a “Romulan Killer”, we could either mean he’s a person who kills Romulans, or that it is a he’s a Romulan who kills. Context fixes the ambiguity in either Language.
On Nov 1, 2021, at 5:15 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
By the way, I know there are canonical examples of noun-noun constructions with noun + adjectival verb, but are there any canonical examples with a noun-noun construction containing a noun + relative clause? Yes. romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (STK) There are undoubtedly others.
That's a really good example. Thanks again!
Thinking about that example it just ocurred to me that such a structure could actually be ambiguous. I know it doesn't make much sense, but it *could* also mean *The probe of the Romulan who she / he will find and kill* or *The probe of the Romulans she / he / they will find and kill*. In phrases with this or similar structure, context or, if necessary, rephrasing would clarify which meaning is intended, am I right? _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 01:19, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
For that matter, it could mean “The probe which finds and kills Romulans.”
We have similar ambiguity in English. If we said someone was a “Romulan Killer”, we could either mean he’s a person who kills Romulans, or that it is a he’s a Romulan who kills. Context fixes the ambiguity in either Language.
HeS Suvchugh HeS SuvwI' 'ej qul Suvchugh qul SuvwI', vaj nuq Suv tlhab SuvwI'? -- jo'rIj qarlIn -- De'vID
Thanks to all of you for your replies! charghwI':
For that matter, it could mean “The probe which finds and kills Romulans.”
Indeed! I was so focused on the noun-noun construction that I didn't notice this possibility. Thanks for pointing it out! De'vID:
HeS Suvchugh HeS SuvwI' 'ej qul Suvchugh qul SuvwI', vaj nuq Suv tlhab SuvwI'? -- jo'rIj qarlIn
:-)
SuStel:
Using -'e' on the head noun of a relative clause is entirely optional, so if it's blocked by some other rule, just don't use an -'e'.
There's something strange in all this. Let's take the original example {DaH be' leghtaHbogh loD paq}, flush {DaH} down the toilet, and assume we want to say "the book of the woman who is seen by the man". It's wrong to place an {-'e'} on the first noun, so we obviously can't write {DaH be''e' leghtaHbogh loD paq}, because that would mean "the woman who is seen by the book of the man". And we can't place the {-'e'} on the first noun of a {-bogh} phrase because the rules of grammar forbid it. On the other hand though, the rules of grammar don't forbid us to understand "the book of the woman who is seen by the man", if we just write the {-bogh} phrase without the {-'e'} on the {be'}. So, to get to the point (or to "get to the roast" as we say in Greece).. Isn't it strange that the rules of grammar forbid us to write something, which at the same time these same rules allow us to understand? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
We have already answered this several times. What is a Relative Clause? It is basically a complete sentence unto itself, which we add {-bogh} to and then encapsulate it into a second sentence so that the Head Noun of the Relative Clause is also acting as a noun in the Main Clause. It is never wrong to simply not add {-bogh} and make that Relative Clause a separate sentence, using outside-of-grammar context/proximity to identify the head noun as the same entity in both sentences. Fred sees Sally. I previously owned Sally’s book. My style of writing doesn’t justify an insistence that in all languages, I can say in one sentence, “I previously owned the book which is now owned by Sally, whom Fred sees.” In Klingon the pair of separate sentences is acceptable style. Your objection to this obvious solution to your specific problem is not Somebody Else’s Problem. It’s your problem. If you argue that as a matter of style, the language needs to bend to your will so that you can do this thing that obviously has problems when done your way, then you should recognize that you don’t have an appropriate writing style for the language. You could adopt an appropriate style, but your alien-to-Klingon style is more important to you than any interest in learning how to write clearly in Klingon. The odd thing, from my perspective, is that anyone could become as obviously skilled with the language as you are, yet insist on using the wrong grammar to express an idea.
On Nov 9, 2021, at 7:47 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
Using -'e' on the head noun of a relative clause is entirely optional, so if it's blocked by some other rule, just don't use an -'e'.
There's something strange in all this. Let's take the original example {DaH be' leghtaHbogh loD paq}, flush {DaH} down the toilet, and assume we want to say "the book of the woman who is seen by the man".
It's wrong to place an {-'e'} on the first noun, so we obviously can't write {DaH be''e' leghtaHbogh loD paq}, because that would mean "the woman who is seen by the book of the man". And we can't place the {-'e'} on the first noun of a {-bogh} phrase because the rules of grammar forbid it.
On the other hand though, the rules of grammar don't forbid us to understand "the book of the woman who is seen by the man", if we just write the {-bogh} phrase without the {-'e'} on the {be'}.
So, to get to the point (or to "get to the roast" as we say in Greece)..
Isn't it strange that the rules of grammar forbid us to write something, which at the same time these same rules allow us to understand?
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
If you argue that as a matter of style, the language needs to bend to your will
I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I wasn't asking for something to change; I was just expressing that (to me) it seems strange that the grammar forbids something, which at the same time indirectly allows. The grammar forbids the addition of {-'e'} in the first noun of a {-bogh} clause (in an example as the above), but at the same time the same language allows for us to understand that {-bogh} clause as if the same {-'e'} that it forbids, existed. Just seems strange, is all. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
It’s also strange that it’s forbidden to use a Type 7 suffix on the second verb of a Sentence As Object construction (a ban created by Okrand to cover a time when he forgot to use one), though he’s subsequently broken his own ban and people often ignore it. Then there’s the thing about the prefix {lu-} which we were told you should use, though people often forget it exists, and then, well, {lutu’lu’} never happens even when it should. And there’s three types of Rovers, only one of which actually roves. The alternative would have been to have had 11 Types instead of 9, with two of the now “Rover” Types having only one suffix in the Type, leaving {-be’} as the only Rover. This would suggest that he wanted to avoid having a single suffix listed per Type… except that {-moH} is the only Type 4 suffix, and {-neS} is the only Type 8. Languages are quirky. As an artificial language posing as a natural language for a fictitious race of aliens, it had a quirky start, and it has lived up to its intentional weirdness. The irregularities are “a feature, not a bug” because artificial languages tend to be more regular than natural languages, and this one is supposed to be a natural language, even though it isn’t, so having inconsistencies is, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, intentional because that makes it more like a natural language.
On Nov 9, 2021, at 8:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI':
If you argue that as a matter of style, the language needs to bend to your will
I'm afraid you misunderstood me.
I wasn't asking for something to change; I was just expressing that (to me) it seems strange that the grammar forbids something, which at the same time indirectly allows.
The grammar forbids the addition of {-'e'} in the first noun of a {-bogh} clause (in an example as the above), but at the same time the same language allows for us to understand that {-bogh} clause as if the same {-'e'} that it forbids, existed.
Just seems strange, is all.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/9/2021 12:04 PM, Will Martin wrote:
It’s also strange that it’s forbidden to use a Type 7 suffix on the second verb of a Sentence As Object construction (a ban created by Okrand to cover a time when he forgot to use one), though he’s subsequently broken his own ban and people often ignore it.
And those people deserve to suffer! I've never heard that he created the ban to cover an instance where he himself forgot it. Rather, the sentence-as-object construction came about as a retrofit to a changed subtitle, and the new meaning didn't include a tense marker on the second verb, so he changed tenses to aspects and said no aspect markers on the second verb. As for an in-universe explanation, I think the second verb was mostly supposed to be fairly simply, thinking and seeing things. "They are used primarily, though not exclusively, with verbs of thinking or observation..." As such, aspect is rarely applicable to them anyway; it's the aspect of the thing thought or seen that's important. When you deviate from the thinking and seeing verbs, the restriction on aspect markers seems more arbitrary.
Then there’s the thing about the prefix {lu-} which we were told you should use, though people often forget it exists, and then, well, {lutu’lu’} never happens even when it should.
Except it's not "should." *tu'lu'* has been clearly established as correct.
And there’s three types of Rovers, only one of which actually roves. The alternative would have been to have had 11 Types instead of 9, with two of the now “Rover” Types having only one suffix in the Type, leaving {-be’} as the only Rover.
What happened to *-qu'?*
This would suggest that he wanted to avoid having a single suffix listed per Type… except that {-moH} is the only Type 4 suffix, and {-neS} is the only Type 8.
I don't think that's it at all. The suffixes appear in the order they do for a reason. You'll note that they frequently mimic in reverse the order of elements we add to words in English. Putting *-Ha'* and *-Qo'* into the category of "rovers" is just a bit of "Klingons are stubborn" humor in the novelty book he wrote. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:36 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I don't think that's it at all. The suffixes appear in the order they do for a reason. You'll note that they frequently mimic in reverse the order of elements we add to words in English. Putting *-Ha'* and *-Qo'* into the category of "rovers" is just a bit of "Klingons are stubborn" humor in the novelty book he wrote.
I wonder if *-Ha'* and *-Qo*' were relatively late additions to the suffix inventory. Maybe when MO decided they would work better "between" existing suffix slots, he didn't want to renumber all the other suffix categories around them, so he just made them rovers.
Am 09.11.2021 um 18:04 schrieb Will Martin:
It’s also strange that it’s forbidden to use a Type 7 suffix on the second verb of a Sentence As Object construction (a ban created by Okrand to cover a time when he forgot to use one)
IIRC, it was not his fault. I believe that this rule originated in the incorrectly translated line {qama'pu' jonta' neH}, which one would have instinctly translated as {qama'pu' vIjon vIneHta'} [sic], but as the line was used already, Okrand had to adapt the grammar. This line also produced the rule that {neH} does not use {'e'}. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://klingon.wiki/En/UnintentionalVocabulary
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 11:51, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 09.11.2021 um 18:04 schrieb Will Martin:
It’s also strange that it’s forbidden to use a Type 7 suffix on the second verb of a Sentence As Object construction (a ban created by Okrand to cover a time when he forgot to use one)
IIRC, it was not his fault. I believe that this rule originated in the incorrectly translated line {qama'pu' jonta' neH}, which one would have instinctly translated as {qama'pu' vIjon vIneHta'} [sic], but as the line was used already, Okrand had to adapt the grammar.
This line also produced the rule that {neH} does not use {'e'}.
Everyone needs to get the story straight. Okrand did not forget to use a type-7 suffix. The line was not incorrectly translated, but repurposed (i.e., retconned) after it had already been filmed. Originally, {qama'pu' jonta' neH} was supposed to mean "I told you, engines only". They decided to use the filmed scene for a line where Kruge instead says "I wanted prisoners." Okrand had to retroactively make that sentence have that meaning, and did so by: - creating the plural suffix {-pu'} for people (originally a verb suffix only, intended to indicate past tense, which was also changed to indicate aspect) - making {qama'} mean prisoner (and changing {ma'} to mean "accommodate", as an inside joke; adding {ja'} to replace the original meaning of {ma'}) - splitting the original word for "engine" into the verb {jon} "capture" and the suffix {-ta'} (and also make up a new word for engine, {QuQ}) - turning {neH}, which was originally only an adverbial, into a verb meaning "want" (which is an exception to rule to use {'e'} for SAO) - inventing Clipped Klingon to explain away the weird grammar I think this is literally the most consequential sentence in the development of the Klingon language. When one considers the backstory behind its creation, then it's obvious that Okrand made the rule forbidding type 7 suffixes on the second verb of an SAO quite deliberately. He could've said that a type-7 suffix was dropped in this sentence because it's in Clipped Klingon, because he had *already* explained away the other oddities about that sentence that way. Here is the relevant rule from TKD 6.2.5: <Note that the verb in [{yaS qIppu' 'e' vIlegh}], {vIlegh} "I see it", is neutral as to time. The past tense of the translation "(I saw...)" comes from the verb in the first sentence, {qIppu'} "he/she hit him/her" ({-pu'} perfective). In complex sentences of this type, the second verb never takes an aspect suffix (section 4.2.7).> You can see some traces that {-pu'} was originally meant to indicate past tense. The idea here seems to be that in a SAO construction, the entire thing has one tense (now aspect), and it's carried by a marker on the first verb. That is, in {qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH}, the entire action of wanting-to-capture is in the past (or is completed). The rule is similar to how you don't change the tense of the second verb in the corresponding English construction: "I wanted to capture prisoners" but not "I want to captured prisoners". (Since English is SVO and Klingon is OVS, the "second" verb ends up being the *other* verb.) Maybe as an English- (or German-) speaker, the translated line would've made more sense as *{qama'pu' vIjon vIneHta'}, but in any case, the rule that type-7 suffixes are allowed only on *one* of the verbs (and disallowed on the other) is perfectly sensible. Okrand himself has forgotten the rule and has written {DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta'} (should've been {DevwI' mojta' ghawran 'e' wuq}) and {patlh luDub 'e' reH lunIDtaH} (should've been {patlh luDubtaH reH 'e' lunID}, as the {reH} also seems to be misplaced) on SkyBox cards 25 and 26. But I don't think there's an example of an SAO with type-7 markers on *both* verbs, which is what I think the spirit of the rule is intended to disallow. -- De'vID
participants (7)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin