After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar.. Anyway, I will use this thread to share my observations, with regards to the book of our good captain. Starting with : p.15 : {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} now you're all beginning to understand how I'm able to own a great warship This is written as an example of a correct sentence, but I don't think that it is ; the {chay'} can't be used in this way.
p.25 : "if {'Iv} and {nuq} can be pronouns, it follows that they may take suffixes in the same manner as pronouns, and we would conclude that the following examples are valid : {pongDaj nuqpu'} what was her name ? {HoD 'Ivqanq} who is willing to be captain ? {'IvvaD ghum chuS'ugh yItlhobQo'} ask not for whom the bell tolls.." So, now I ask : Is the above use of {'Iv} and {nuq} acceptable ? On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar..
Anyway, I will use this thread to share my observations, with regards to the book of our good captain.
Starting with :
p.15 :
{chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} now you're all beginning to understand how I'm able to own a great warship
This is written as an example of a correct sentence, but I don't think that it is ; the {chay'} can't be used in this way.
p.31 : {SoHvaD HIqaghQo' vIja'pu'} Is this an acceptable quotation ? On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:44 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.25 :
"if {'Iv} and {nuq} can be pronouns, it follows that they may take suffixes in the same manner as pronouns, and we would conclude that the following examples are valid :
{pongDaj nuqpu'} what was her name ?
{HoD 'Ivqanq} who is willing to be captain ?
{'IvvaD ghum chuS'ugh yItlhobQo'} ask not for whom the bell tolls.."
So, now I ask : Is the above use of {'Iv} and {nuq} acceptable ?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar..
Anyway, I will use this thread to share my observations, with regards to the book of our good captain.
Starting with :
p.15 :
{chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} now you're all beginning to understand how I'm able to own a great warship
This is written as an example of a correct sentence, but I don't think that it is ; the {chay'} can't be used in this way.
On 7/4/2016 5:53 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
p.31 :
{SoHvaD HIqaghQo' vIja'pu'}
Is this an acceptable quotation ?
No. Krankor had trouble with the idea of quotations not being the objects of verbs of saying. Correct ways of saying this are: *qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'* *HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'* *SoHvaD jIja'pu' HIqaghQo'* *HIqaghQo' SoHvaD jIja'pu'* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 7/4/2016 5:44 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
p.25 :
"if {'Iv} and {nuq} can be pronouns, it follows that they may take suffixes in the same manner as pronouns, and we would conclude that the following examples are valid :
{pongDaj nuqpu'} what was her name ?
I would only—possibly—accept this if you're asking what her name /completed/ being. Not something one asks very often. Krankor is confusing tense with aspect.
{HoD 'Ivqanq} who is willing to be captain ?
This seems more reasonable. I'm still not sure I accept the idea that because the pronomial question words can be used verbally means they must be able to accept verb suffixes.
{'IvvaD ghum chuS'ugh yItlhobQo'} ask not for whom the bell tolls.."
I am far more comfortable allowing noun suffixes on the pronomial question words. I see no problem with that at all. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 4 July 2016 at 11:09, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar..
The Grammarian's Desk is a slightly dangerous book. It was written before Okrand clarified many points of grammar, so it contains a lot of guesswork which turned out to be wrong and out of date. -- De'vID
thank you De'vID, for verifying my thoughts ! this is the reason I chose to read it after klingonska, so as not to mess up my understanding of proper grammar. and because of this reason I created this thread, in order to discuss anything strange/inconsistent I read there ! On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:29 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 July 2016 at 11:09, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar..
The Grammarian's Desk is a slightly dangerous book. It was written before Okrand clarified many points of grammar, so it contains a lot of guesswork which turned out to be wrong and out of date.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
p.37 : {vavwI' Dun tIn law' vavlI' moH tIn puS} my wonderful father is bigger than your ugly father {reH batlh Suvbogh vavwI' tIn law' taHqeq Dabejbogh vavqoqlI''e' tIn puS} my father who always fights honorably is bigger than your so-called father who certainly acts like a taHqeq I think both of these sentences must be correct ; I can't find something wrong. On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:38 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
thank you De'vID, for verifying my thoughts !
this is the reason I chose to read it after klingonska, so as not to mess up my understanding of proper grammar.
and because of this reason I created this thread, in order to discuss anything strange/inconsistent I read there !
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:29 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 July 2016 at 11:09, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar..
The Grammarian's Desk is a slightly dangerous book. It was written before Okrand clarified many points of grammar, so it contains a lot of guesswork which turned out to be wrong and out of date.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
p.38 : {jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS} I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it. On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.37 :
{vavwI' Dun tIn law' vavlI' moH tIn puS} my wonderful father is bigger than your ugly father
{reH batlh Suvbogh vavwI' tIn law' taHqeq Dabejbogh vavqoqlI''e' tIn puS} my father who always fights honorably is bigger than your so-called father who certainly acts like a taHqeq
I think both of these sentences must be correct ; I can't find something wrong.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:38 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
thank you De'vID, for verifying my thoughts !
this is the reason I chose to read it after klingonska, so as not to mess up my understanding of proper grammar.
and because of this reason I created this thread, in order to discuss anything strange/inconsistent I read there !
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:29 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 July 2016 at 11:09, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar..
The Grammarian's Desk is a slightly dangerous book. It was written before Okrand clarified many points of grammar, so it contains a lot of guesswork which turned out to be wrong and out of date.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
p.41 : {-ghach} is placed on {ghItlh} without a verb suffix preceeding On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:17 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.38 :
{jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS} I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake
I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.37 :
{vavwI' Dun tIn law' vavlI' moH tIn puS} my wonderful father is bigger than your ugly father
{reH batlh Suvbogh vavwI' tIn law' taHqeq Dabejbogh vavqoqlI''e' tIn puS} my father who always fights honorably is bigger than your so-called father who certainly acts like a taHqeq
I think both of these sentences must be correct ; I can't find something wrong.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:38 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
thank you De'vID, for verifying my thoughts !
this is the reason I chose to read it after klingonska, so as not to mess up my understanding of proper grammar.
and because of this reason I created this thread, in order to discuss anything strange/inconsistent I read there !
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:29 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 July 2016 at 11:09, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar..
The Grammarian's Desk is a slightly dangerous book. It was written before Okrand clarified many points of grammar, so it contains a lot of guesswork which turned out to be wrong and out of date.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
p. 41 : {may' tIvchu'ghachvaD HoD 'ut jagh 'ong} this is so tragic, it defies commenting.. On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:24 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.41 :
{-ghach} is placed on {ghItlh} without a verb suffix preceeding
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:17 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.38 :
{jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS} I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake
I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.37 :
{vavwI' Dun tIn law' vavlI' moH tIn puS} my wonderful father is bigger than your ugly father
{reH batlh Suvbogh vavwI' tIn law' taHqeq Dabejbogh vavqoqlI''e' tIn puS} my father who always fights honorably is bigger than your so-called father who certainly acts like a taHqeq
I think both of these sentences must be correct ; I can't find something wrong.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:38 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
thank you De'vID, for verifying my thoughts !
this is the reason I chose to read it after klingonska, so as not to mess up my understanding of proper grammar.
and because of this reason I created this thread, in order to discuss anything strange/inconsistent I read there !
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:29 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 July 2016 at 11:09, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar..
The Grammarian's Desk is a slightly dangerous book. It was written before Okrand clarified many points of grammar, so it contains a lot of guesswork which turned out to be wrong and out of date.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
p. 43 : Star Trek 6 The Undiscovered Country : {'e' neHbe' vavwI'} my father didn't want than "{'e'} can refer to something spoken by someone else" ..since this is obviously based on canon, I will assimilate the ghe'tor out of it ! On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:34 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p. 41 :
{may' tIvchu'ghachvaD HoD 'ut jagh 'ong}
this is so tragic, it defies commenting..
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:24 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.41 :
{-ghach} is placed on {ghItlh} without a verb suffix preceeding
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:17 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.38 :
{jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS} I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake
I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.37 :
{vavwI' Dun tIn law' vavlI' moH tIn puS} my wonderful father is bigger than your ugly father
{reH batlh Suvbogh vavwI' tIn law' taHqeq Dabejbogh vavqoqlI''e' tIn puS} my father who always fights honorably is bigger than your so-called father who certainly acts like a taHqeq
I think both of these sentences must be correct ; I can't find something wrong.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:38 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
thank you De'vID, for verifying my thoughts !
this is the reason I chose to read it after klingonska, so as not to mess up my understanding of proper grammar.
and because of this reason I created this thread, in order to discuss anything strange/inconsistent I read there !
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:29 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 July 2016 at 11:09, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: > After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our > good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that > it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost > me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar..
The Grammarian's Desk is a slightly dangerous book. It was written before Okrand clarified many points of grammar, so it contains a lot of guesswork which turned out to be wrong and out of date.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
So, I just finished "The grammarian's desk".. the only thing I found truly useful and new, is using the {'e'} to refer to something spoken by someone else ; and since it is based on canon I will put it to use. toH ! tagha' Hoch Supmey vIlaDta'.. DaH jIleSlaH 'ej ngoQwIj vItIv : tlhIngan Hol lo'.. qaStaHvIS jar law', ghe''or vIyInpu' 'ach tagha' jIQapta'.. Qapla' ! mop Hurgh qunnoq On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:48 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p. 43 :
Star Trek 6 The Undiscovered Country :
{'e' neHbe' vavwI'} my father didn't want than
"{'e'} can refer to something spoken by someone else"
..since this is obviously based on canon, I will assimilate the ghe'tor out of it !
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:34 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p. 41 :
{may' tIvchu'ghachvaD HoD 'ut jagh 'ong}
this is so tragic, it defies commenting..
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:24 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.41 :
{-ghach} is placed on {ghItlh} without a verb suffix preceeding
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:17 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.38 :
{jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS} I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake
I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
p.37 :
{vavwI' Dun tIn law' vavlI' moH tIn puS} my wonderful father is bigger than your ugly father
{reH batlh Suvbogh vavwI' tIn law' taHqeq Dabejbogh vavqoqlI''e' tIn puS} my father who always fights honorably is bigger than your so-called father who certainly acts like a taHqeq
I think both of these sentences must be correct ; I can't find something wrong.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:38 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
thank you De'vID, for verifying my thoughts !
this is the reason I chose to read it after klingonska, so as not to mess up my understanding of proper grammar.
and because of this reason I created this thread, in order to discuss anything strange/inconsistent I read there !
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:29 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 July 2016 at 11:09, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: >> After reading klingonska, I targeted my sensors on the book of our >> good captain Krankor, "the grammarians desk", which I need to say that >> it was very hard to find, and as soon as I did find it, it almost cost >> me an arm and a leg. Apparently it was shipped from ferenginar.. > > The Grammarian's Desk is a slightly dangerous book. It was written > before Okrand clarified many points of grammar, so it contains a lot > of guesswork which turned out to be wrong and out of date. > > -- > De'vID > _______________________________________________ > tlhIngan-Hol mailing list > tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org > http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/4/2016 9:17 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
p.38 :
{jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS} I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake
I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it.
It's not acceptable. The format of a comparative sentence is A Q *law'* B Q *puS.* A and B must be noun phrases. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
thank you SuStel ! On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:31 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/4/2016 9:17 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
p.38 :
{jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS} I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake
I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it.
It's not acceptable. The format of a comparative sentence is A Q law' B Q puS. A and B must be noun phrases.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 4 July 2016 at 19:31, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/4/2016 9:17 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
p.38 :
{jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS} I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake
I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it.
It's not acceptable. The format of a comparative sentence is A Q law' B Q puS. A and B must be noun phrases.
The proverb {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} suggests the formula may be somewhat more flexible when it comes to what a "noun phrase" is, though. A and B can't be verbs or sentences, but it seems that {V1-taHvIS N1 Q law' V2-taHvIS N2 Q puS} is an acceptable form. The commentary in TKW only says that {-taH} is missing in the proverb. -- De'vID
On 7/14/2016 4:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
On 4 July 2016 at 19:31, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/4/2016 9:17 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
p.38 :
{jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS} I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake
I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it.
It's not acceptable. The format of a comparative sentence is A Q law' B Q puS. A and B must be noun phrases. The proverb {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} suggests the formula may be somewhat more flexible when it comes to what a "noun phrase" is, though. A and B can't be verbs or sentences, but it seems that {V1-taHvIS N1 Q law' V2-taHvIS N2 Q puS} is an acceptable form. The commentary in TKW only says that {-taH} is missing in the proverb.
Given the aberrant grammar, the warning that "in proverbs, however, grammatical shortcuts are not uncommon," and the explanation in TKD that "Klingon verbs ending in Type 9 suffixes (other than *-'a'*/interrogative/ and *-wI'*/one who does, one which does/) always occur in sentences with another verb," I consider this proverb too unreliable to form any conclusions about new grammar. *QamvIS Hegh* and *torvIS yIn* are either unusual noun phrases /(death while standing, life while kneeling)/ without the required other verb, or they're verbal clauses /(dying while standing, living while kneeling)/ which aren't the noun phrases required by a comparative sentence. I would need something far clearer before ever accepting this kind of thing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 14 July 2016 at 15:11, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/14/2016 4:27 AM, De'vID wrote: The proverb {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} suggests the formula may be somewhat more flexible when it comes to what a "noun phrase" is, though. A and B can't be verbs or sentences, but it seems that {V1-taHvIS N1 Q law' V2-taHvIS N2 Q puS} is an acceptable form. The commentary in TKW only says that {-taH} is missing in the proverb.
Given the aberrant grammar, the warning that "in proverbs, however, grammatical shortcuts are not uncommon,"
Just before that, it says "The grammatical construction is a bit aberrant". The way it's written, it suggests that the only problem is the missing {-taH}. I agree that we shouldn't generalise from one example, but I think Okrand was leaving himself wriggle room here to be a bit more flexible with the law'/puS construction.
and the explanation in TKD that "Klingon verbs ending in Type 9 suffixes (other than -'a' interrogative and -wI' one who does, one which does) always occur in sentences with another verb,"
And here, that verb is {qaq}. Embedded within this comparative are the two implied sentences {Qam[taH]vIS qaq Hegh} and {tor[taH]vIS qaq yIn}.
I consider this proverb too unreliable to form any conclusions about new grammar.
On that I agree. -- De'vID
On 7/14/2016 11:29 AM, De'vID wrote:
On 14 July 2016 at 15:11, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 7/14/2016 4:27 AM, De'vID wrote: The proverb {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} suggests the formula may be somewhat more flexible when it comes to what a "noun phrase" is, though. A and B can't be verbs or sentences, but it seems that {V1-taHvIS N1 Q law' V2-taHvIS N2 Q puS} is an acceptable form. The commentary in TKW only says that {-taH} is missing in the proverb.
Given the aberrant grammar, the warning that "in proverbs, however, grammatical shortcuts are not uncommon,"
Just before that, it says "The grammatical construction is a bit aberrant". The way it's written, it suggests that the only problem is the missing {-taH}.
Yes, but put all those things I mentioned together and you have a highly suspect sentence.
and the explanation in TKD that "Klingon verbs ending in Type 9 suffixes (other than -'a' interrogative and -wI' one who does, one which does) always occur in sentences with another verb,"
And here, that verb is {qaq}. Embedded within this comparative are the two implied sentences {Qam[taH]vIS qaq Hegh} and {tor[taH]vIS qaq yIn}.
But you said this suggested that *QamvIS Hegh* and *torvIS yIn* satisfied the /noun phrase/ parts of the comparative, as if such phrases could stand alone as noun phrases. Besides this crazy proverb, there is no evidence that *-vIS* can do this. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 14 July 2016 at 17:44, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/14/2016 11:29 AM, De'vID wrote:
Just before that, it says "The grammatical construction is a bit aberrant". The way it's written, it suggests that the only problem is the missing {-taH}.
Yes, but put all those things I mentioned together and you have a highly suspect sentence.
Here's the whole passage: <More literally, this is "Dying while standing is preferable to living while kneeling." The grammatical construction is a bit aberrant; one would expect "{QamtaHvIS}" ("while continuing to stand") and "{tortaHvIS}" (while continuing to kneel"). In proverbs, however, grammatical shortcuts are not uncommon. Even the Federation Standard might be considered somewhat incomplete. One would expect "*It is* better to die on our feet than *to* live on our knees."> It reads to me like the Klingon sentence is no more aberrant than "Better to die on our feet than live on our knees" is in English. The grammar of the English proverb isn't constructive either, i.e., you couldn't just construct an arbitrary sentence of the form "Better to X than to Y" and not have it sound strange in most cases.
and the explanation in TKD that "Klingon verbs ending in Type 9 suffixes (other than -'a' interrogative and -wI' one who does, one which does) always occur in sentences with another verb,"
And here, that verb is {qaq}. Embedded within this comparative are the two implied sentences {Qam[taH]vIS qaq Hegh} and {tor[taH]vIS qaq yIn}.
But you said this suggested that QamvIS Hegh and torvIS yIn satisfied the noun phrase parts of the comparative, as if such phrases could stand alone as noun phrases. Besides this crazy proverb, there is no evidence that -vIS can do this.
What I'm suggesting is that {Hegh} and {yIn} satisfy the noun phrases, while {Qam[taH]vIS} and {tor[taH]vIS} are subordinate clauses in which the other verb is {qaq}. I'm not suggesting anyone construct sentences of this form, only that it's analysable using grammar in TKD. Perhaps such sentences were grammatically kosher in the past, but are no longer, and such constructions are found only in fixed proverbs. -- De'vID
On 7/4/2016 9:13 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
p.37 :
{vavwI' Dun tIn law' vavlI' moH tIn puS} my wonderful father is bigger than your ugly father
{reH batlh Suvbogh vavwI' tIn law' taHqeq Dabejbogh vavqoqlI''e' tIn puS} my father who always fights honorably is bigger than your so-called father who certainly acts like a taHqeq
I think both of these sentences must be correct ; I can't find something wrong.
lugh bIH. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
RE: /The Grammarian's Desk/ On 7/4/2016 5:09 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
p.15 :
{chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} now you're all beginning to understand how I'm able to own a great warship
This is written as an example of a correct sentence, but I don't think that it is ; the {chay'} can't be used in this way.
Krankor's grammar is /not/ to be interpreted as canonical, or even good. Much of what he wrote was composed before a lot of later information was obtained, and Krankor largely refuses to update his understanding of the language when new information appears or when our understanding of the grammar changes. Upon his learning of something new Okrand has said regarding the grammar, I have heard him flatly refuse to follow it simply because he didn't like it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I believe this was not yeat answered, or did I miss it? Am 04.07.2016 um 11:09 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
p.15 TGD:
{chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} now you're all beginning to understand how I'm able to own a great warship
This is written as an example of a correct sentence, but I don't think that it is ; the {chay'} can't be used in this way.
You are feeling correct. This theoretical construction would be a Question as Object, and has frequently been discussed as being not correct: [chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH?] - DaH 'e' boyajchoH The problem is that in english (and many other languages), the question words can function as relative pronouns, like "I know why you are here" "I see what you did". That does not work in Klingon. At least that's the latest information I know. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
ok, now you lost me.. this is definitely wrong : {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} but this is right ? [chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH?] - DaH 'e' boyajchoH On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I believe this was not yeat answered, or did I miss it?
Am 04.07.2016 um 11:09 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
p.15 TGD:
{chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} now you're all beginning to understand how I'm able to own a great warship
This is written as an example of a correct sentence, but I don't think that it is ; the {chay'} can't be used in this way.
You are feeling correct. This theoretical construction would be a Question as Object, and has frequently been discussed as being not correct:
[chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH?] - DaH 'e' boyajchoH
The problem is that in english (and many other languages), the question words can function as relative pronouns, like "I know why you are here" "I see what you did". That does not work in Klingon.
At least that's the latest information I know.
-- 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
Am 13.07.2016 um 14:44 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
but this is right ?
[chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH?] - DaH 'e' boyajchoH
No, since Klingon is a spoken language, punctuation does not change anything in the meaning. It's still wrong. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
you know.. there are some things in klingon which do make sense, and I understand their necessity. on the other hand, there are others which I can't understand why they have to be this way ; why would it hurt to actually have QAO ? why would it hurt to have an aspect suffix after the {'e'} in a SAO ? why {lu'} and {laH}, or {qa'} and {choH}, are mutually exclusive ? can't "someone" be "able to" at the same time ? or can't I "start" doing something "again" ? but as in life there are no answers to the questions that really matter (why are we born, what happens after death etc), in tlhIngan Hol too, there are no answers to the questions that really matter either.. yan Doq qunnoq On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 13.07.2016 um 14:44 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
but this is right ?
[chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH?] - DaH 'e' boyajchoH
No, since Klingon is a spoken language, punctuation does not change anything in the meaning. It's still wrong.
-- 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 13 July 2016 at 10:38, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I believe this was not yeat answered, or did I miss it?
There was an earlier message by SuStel warning about taking Krankor's examples as models.
Am 04.07.2016 um 11:09 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
p.15 TGD:
{chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} now you're all beginning to understand how I'm able to own a great warship
This is written as an example of a correct sentence, but I don't think that it is ; the {chay'} can't be used in this way.
You are feeling correct. This theoretical construction would be a Question as Object, and has frequently been discussed as being not correct:
Are you saying that any QAO *construction* is just ungrammatical? I was under the impression that what was considered incorrect was *misinterpreting* the question word in a QAO sentence as a relative pronoun. For example, {nuq vIghaj 'e' DaSov} appears to me to be a perfectly good Klingon question meaning "what do you know I have?" Isn't the QAO error just in misinterpreting this sentence to mean "you know what I have" (using {nuq} "what" as a relative pronoun)? Would anyone on this mailing list even blink if they heard a Klingon ask {'Iv vIHoH DaneH}? Or misinterpret it as "you want who I kill"?
[chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH?] - DaH 'e' boyajchoH
The problem is that in english (and many other languages), the question words can function as relative pronouns, like "I know why you are here" "I see what you did". That does not work in Klingon.
At least that's the latest information I know.
I actually think {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} is a perfectly grammatical Klingon sentence, just one that doesn't mean what Krankor wrote it means. In fact, I think Klingon can express certain questions more economically and precisely than English. {chay' maSuv 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., he ordered us to fight; what manner of fighting did he order us to do?)" This does *not* mean "he commanded how we fight" as a statement, and it can be contrasted with: {maSuv chay' 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., did he talk to us in person, did he send a coded communique by subspace, did he send us a message by courier, etc.?)" What's the rationale for saying that QAO *constructions* are illegal, rather than just that they shouldn't be *misinterpreted* as statements with relative pronouns? -- De'vID
On 7/13/2016 10:10 AM, De'vID wrote:
Are you saying that any QAO *construction* is just ungrammatical? I was under the impression that what was considered incorrect was *misinterpreting* the question word in a QAO sentence as a relative pronoun.
We got our first question-as-object sentence from Okrand in TalkNow!: *nuq Datlhutlh DaneH*/What do you want to drink?/ This supports the idea that you can use**the pronoun-like (not relative pronoun) question words *nuq* and *'Iv* in the place of the answer, just as TKD describes, even if it's in the first sentence of a sentence-as-object construction.
Would anyone on this mailing list even blink if they heard a Klingon ask {'Iv vIHoH DaneH}? Or misinterpret it as "you want who I kill"?
I would blink, because I'd be thinking, "Oh, it's a question-as-object construction, but it's one of the okay ones."
I actually think {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} is a perfectly grammatical Klingon sentence, just one that doesn't mean what Krankor wrote it means.
If it's grammatical, I don't understand what it means.
In fact, I think Klingon can express certain questions more economically and precisely than English.
{chay' maSuv 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., he ordered us to fight; what manner of fighting did he order us to do?)"
This does *not* mean "he commanded how we fight" as a statement, and it can be contrasted with: {maSuv chay' 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., did he talk to us in person, did he send a coded communique by subspace, did he send us a message by courier, etc.?)"
Although they are not spelled out in TKD, based on the TalkNow! example I would probably also accept sentences like: *nuqDaq bItlhutlh DaneH */where do you want to drink?/ *ghorgh bItlhutlh DaneH */when do you want to drink?/ *HIq 'ar Datlhutlh DaneH */how many ales do you want to drink?/ *chay' Datlhutlh DaneH */how//do you//want to drink?/ But, as you say, I wouldn't accept sentences in which the question word is being used as a relative pronoun. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 13.07.2016 um 17:08 schrieb SuStel:
But, as you say, I wouldn't accept sentences in which the question word is being used as a relative pronoun.
This pins it down to what I wanted to say. Of course all of your given examples are correct, but they are not true QAO: "when do you want to drink?" is ghorgh [bItlhutlh DaneH] (a question word in front of a SAO) and not [ghorgh bItlhutlh] DaneH (a Question as object) The "when" refers to "you want to drink". It's not "you want that when do you drink?" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 13 July 2016 at 17:48, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
This pins it down to what I wanted to say. Of course all of your given examples are correct, but they are not true QAO:
I think they are *exactly* QAO constructions. I think people are confused and are (mistakenly) using the term "QAO" to refer to constructions which *happen to be* QAO, but are problematic not in themselves but only because they have been misinterpreted (i.e., mistranslated into English) as sentences with relative pronouns.
"when do you want to drink?" is ghorgh [bItlhutlh DaneH] (a question word in front of a SAO) and not [ghorgh bItlhutlh] DaneH (a Question as object)
The "when" refers to "you want to drink". It's not "you want that when do you drink?"
I disagree with this. Klingon grammar allows one sentence to be the object of another. A question is still a type of sentence. {bItlhutlh DaneH} "you want to drink" {(ghorgh bItlhutlh) DaneH} "when do you want to drink?"; i.e., "you want to drink; when does this drinking take place?" {bItlhutlh (ghorgh DaneH}} "when do you want to drink?"; i.e., "you want to drink; when does this wanting take place?" The "when" does not refer to "you want to drink". If it did, the question would be asking about when the act of "wanting to drink" takes place, not when the act of "drinking" takes place. I think the Klingon sentence is exactly "you want that when do you drink?" That sounds unnatural in Klingon, but only because English doesn't make it clear what the "when" applies to in a sentence with multiple verbs, and Klingon does. -- De'vID
On 14 July 2016 at 10:41, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the Klingon sentence is exactly "you want that when do you drink?" That sounds unnatural in Klingon, but only because English doesn't make it clear what the "when" applies to in a sentence with multiple verbs, and Klingon does.
[I meant "sounds unnatural in *English*" of course.] -- De'vID
I understand that when experts talk, they have the tendency to explain things in a way, simple people are unable to understand. but because a conclusion (which simple people will be able to understand), must come out of all this, I will ask again : Are the following correct ? question word {sentence 1 'e' sentence 2} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about the entire {sentence 1 'e' sentence 2}. {sentence 1 question word 'e' sentence 2} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about sentence 2. question word {sentence 1 neH} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about the entire {sentence 1 neH}. {sentence 1 question word neH} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about the {neH}. from this entire thread I understand, that there is no problem placing a question word anywhere in a SAO, as long as the resulting construction functions / is to be interpreted as a question. If this conclusion is wrong, someone do correct me. mIv mop je Hurgh qunnoq On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 July 2016 at 10:41, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the Klingon sentence is exactly "you want that when do you drink?" That sounds unnatural in Klingon, but only because English doesn't make it clear what the "when" applies to in a sentence with multiple verbs, and Klingon does.
[I meant "sounds unnatural in *English*" of course.]
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/14/2016 5:40 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Are the following correct ?
question word {sentence 1 'e' sentence 2} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about the entire {sentence 1 'e' sentence 2}.
{sentence 1 question word 'e' sentence 2} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about sentence 2.
question word {sentence 1 neH} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about the entire {sentence 1 neH}.
{sentence 1 question word neH} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about the {neH}.
from this entire thread I understand, that there is no problem placing a question word anywhere in a SAO, as long as the resulting construction functions / is to be interpreted as a question.
The problem is that you're asking about things we aren't entirely sure of. I /think/ sentence 1 can be asking a question, provided the answer in place of sentence 1 still makes sense in the complex sentence as a whole. We're also not entirely sure how adverbials and question words work with *neH* sentences. Our sole example, so far as I know, is Captain Klaa saying *reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH*/I've always wanted to fight a federation ship./ Note that he didn't say **DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH,* and his sentence doesn't mean /I want to always fight federation ships./ It appears that the *reH* either applies to the wanting and migrated in front of sentence 1 (as if sentence 1 actually gets put in the object position itself instead of using *'e'*) or applies to the complex sentence as a whole (meaning something like /I want to fight a Federation ship; this is always true/). We just don't know how this sentence operates, and it's our only example. So the answer to your question, are your statements correct, is "maybe." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I believe this settles the matter : http://klingonska.org/canon/2011-10-30-email.txt --- quote starts --- In an e-mail from 1998 ( http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1998-05-28- email.txt&get=source ), DloraH decribed an exchange with Marc Okrand: <http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1998-05-28-email.txt&get=source> "The first one I nailed him with was our lovely QAO. Uh-oh. You can not use a "question" as an object; but... it is not known yet if Klingon question words can act as one of those relative things, uh, relative pronoun is it? You guys know what I'm refering to. So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be to recast if possible." This seemed to rule the above alternative out, and there's since been no indication that one can use words like nuq and 'Iv as relative pronouns, and MO seems to prefer constructions involving -bogh and ngu' (such as <jar DamaSqu'bogh yIngu'>, <nuH DaneHbogh yIngu'> and <Daq DaDabbogh yIngu'>). However, there's been one other option up for consideration: Can you use a question as an object if the resulting two-sentence construction remains a question? For example, can we ask: yan 'ISletlh muv 'Iv DaneH Qang. - Chancellor, who do you want for the Yan-Isleth? nuq vIjatlh DaneH. - What do you want me to say? Qang HoHta' 'Iv 'e' Dalegh. - Who did you see kill the Chancellor? Well, with this new canonical sentence - nuq Datlhutlh DaneH - it appears that this ancient question has been answered: YES WE CAN! --- quote ends --- all these months I believed that all qao's are illegal. in dark of the above, I will be qao'ing as there's no tomorrow. dth qunnoq On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:08 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/13/2016 10:10 AM, De'vID wrote:
Are you saying that any QAO *construction* is just ungrammatical? I was under the impression that what was considered incorrect was *misinterpreting* the question word in a QAO sentence as a relative pronoun.
We got our first question-as-object sentence from Okrand in TalkNow!: nuq Datlhutlh DaneH What do you want to drink? This supports the idea that you can use the pronoun-like (not relative pronoun) question words nuq and 'Iv in the place of the answer, just as TKD describes, even if it's in the first sentence of a sentence-as-object construction.
Would anyone on this mailing list even blink if they heard a Klingon ask {'Iv vIHoH DaneH}? Or misinterpret it as "you want who I kill"?
I would blink, because I'd be thinking, "Oh, it's a question-as-object construction, but it's one of the okay ones."
I actually think {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} is a perfectly grammatical Klingon sentence, just one that doesn't mean what Krankor wrote it means.
If it's grammatical, I don't understand what it means.
In fact, I think Klingon can express certain questions more economically and precisely than English.
{chay' maSuv 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., he ordered us to fight; what manner of fighting did he order us to do?)"
This does *not* mean "he commanded how we fight" as a statement, and it can be contrasted with: {maSuv chay' 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., did he talk to us in person, did he send a coded communique by subspace, did he send us a message by courier, etc.?)"
Although they are not spelled out in TKD, based on the TalkNow! example I would probably also accept sentences like:
nuqDaq bItlhutlh DaneH where do you want to drink?
ghorgh bItlhutlh DaneH when do you want to drink?
HIq 'ar Datlhutlh DaneH how many ales do you want to drink?
chay' Datlhutlh DaneH how do you want to drink?
But, as you say, I wouldn't accept sentences in which the question word is being used as a relative pronoun.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
lieven:
ghorgh [bItlhutlh DaneH] (a question word in front of a SAO) and not [ghorgh bItlhutlh] DaneH (a Question as object)
and why don't we just write : {bItlhutlh ghorgh DaneH} thus avoiding the confusion ? also I just noticed this contradiction on the following three sentences, from the klingonska article:
yan 'ISletlh muv 'Iv DaneH Qang. - Chancellor, who do you want for the Yan-Isleth? nuq vIjatlh DaneH. - What do you want me to say? Qang HoHta' 'Iv 'e' Dalegh. - Who did you see kill the Chancellor?
on the first and third sentence, the {'Iv} is placed before the {neH} and {'e'} respectively. why on the second it is being placed at the beginning of the sentence ? mop Hurgh Dtlh On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:54 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe this settles the matter :
http://klingonska.org/canon/2011-10-30-email.txt
--- quote starts ---
In an e-mail from 1998 ( http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1998-05-28- email.txt&get=source ), DloraH decribed an exchange with Marc Okrand: <http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1998-05-28-email.txt&get=source>
"The first one I nailed him with was our lovely QAO. Uh-oh. You can not use a "question" as an object; but... it is not known yet if Klingon question words can act as one of those relative things, uh, relative pronoun is it? You guys know what I'm refering to. So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be to recast if possible."
This seemed to rule the above alternative out, and there's since been no indication that one can use words like nuq and 'Iv as relative pronouns, and MO seems to prefer constructions involving -bogh and ngu' (such as <jar DamaSqu'bogh yIngu'>, <nuH DaneHbogh yIngu'> and <Daq DaDabbogh yIngu'>).
However, there's been one other option up for consideration: Can you use a question as an object if the resulting two-sentence construction remains a question? For example, can we ask: yan 'ISletlh muv 'Iv DaneH Qang. - Chancellor, who do you want for the Yan-Isleth? nuq vIjatlh DaneH. - What do you want me to say? Qang HoHta' 'Iv 'e' Dalegh. - Who did you see kill the Chancellor?
Well, with this new canonical sentence - nuq Datlhutlh DaneH - it appears that this ancient question has been answered: YES WE CAN!
--- quote ends ---
all these months I believed that all qao's are illegal. in dark of the above, I will be qao'ing as there's no tomorrow.
dth qunnoq
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:08 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/13/2016 10:10 AM, De'vID wrote:
Are you saying that any QAO *construction* is just ungrammatical? I was under the impression that what was considered incorrect was *misinterpreting* the question word in a QAO sentence as a relative pronoun.
We got our first question-as-object sentence from Okrand in TalkNow!: nuq Datlhutlh DaneH What do you want to drink? This supports the idea that you can use the pronoun-like (not relative pronoun) question words nuq and 'Iv in the place of the answer, just as TKD describes, even if it's in the first sentence of a sentence-as-object construction.
Would anyone on this mailing list even blink if they heard a Klingon ask {'Iv vIHoH DaneH}? Or misinterpret it as "you want who I kill"?
I would blink, because I'd be thinking, "Oh, it's a question-as-object construction, but it's one of the okay ones."
I actually think {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} is a perfectly grammatical Klingon sentence, just one that doesn't mean what Krankor wrote it means.
If it's grammatical, I don't understand what it means.
In fact, I think Klingon can express certain questions more economically and precisely than English.
{chay' maSuv 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., he ordered us to fight; what manner of fighting did he order us to do?)"
This does *not* mean "he commanded how we fight" as a statement, and it can be contrasted with: {maSuv chay' 'e' ra'} "how did he order us to fight? (i.e., did he talk to us in person, did he send a coded communique by subspace, did he send us a message by courier, etc.?)"
Although they are not spelled out in TKD, based on the TalkNow! example I would probably also accept sentences like:
nuqDaq bItlhutlh DaneH where do you want to drink?
ghorgh bItlhutlh DaneH when do you want to drink?
HIq 'ar Datlhutlh DaneH how many ales do you want to drink?
chay' Datlhutlh DaneH how do you want to drink?
But, as you say, I wouldn't accept sentences in which the question word is being used as a relative pronoun.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:04 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
lieven:
ghorgh [bItlhutlh DaneH] (a question word in front of a SAO) and not [ghorgh bItlhutlh] DaneH (a Question as object)
I disagree with Lieven's grouping. I believe that it *is* a question as the object of {neH}, which works fine since the intended meaning is to ask a question.
and why don't we just write : {bItlhutlh ghorgh DaneH} thus avoiding the confusion ?
Because that would be asking "when" about the wanting, not about the drinking.
also I just noticed this contradiction on the following three sentences, from the klingonska article:
yan 'ISletlh muv 'Iv DaneH Qang. - Chancellor, who do you want for the Yan-Isleth? nuq vIjatlh DaneH. - What do you want me to say? Qang HoHta' 'Iv 'e' Dalegh. - Who did you see kill the Chancellor?
on the first and third sentence, the {'Iv} is placed before the {neH} and {'e'} respectively. why on the second it is being placed at the beginning of the sentence ?
Objects come before the verb. Subjects come after. But you know that already, so I'm not sure what your question really is. -- ghunchu'wI'
Am 13.07.2016 um 18:16 schrieb Alan Anderson:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:04 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
lieven:
ghorgh [bItlhutlh DaneH] (a question word in front of a SAO) and not [ghorgh bItlhutlh] DaneH (a Question as object)
I disagree with Lieven's grouping.
I like that, as I may be wrong. The problem is that I'm not a linuist and I lack the correct words. Maybe I have a mindtwist and say differently from what I think. After all, there will be no difference in the final phrase... This is how I see the phrases in my head: "you want to drink" - {bItlhutlh DaneH}. That's a statement. "you drink" is the object of {DaneH}. All fine. Now I change the entire thing to a question adding a question word: WHEN do you want to drink ("please state the time of your desired drinking event"). In this construction, I see it not as the object of the wanting. Another approach: TKD tell us the word 'e' can be translated as "that". When I read {nuq Datlhutlh} as the object of {DaneH}, I should translate it literally as "You want that what do you drink". This is why I do not see it as the object. But maybe I am on the wrong track - and it wouldn't matter anyway as we know that THIS construction is allowed. Question words used as relative pronouns seems to be not allowed as far as I remember. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
From: Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain Am 13.07.2016 um 18:16 schrieb Alan Anderson:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:04 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
lieven:
ghorgh [bItlhutlh DaneH] (a question word in front of a SAO) and not [ghorgh bItlhutlh] DaneH (a Question as object)
I disagree with Lieven's grouping.
ghItlh Lieven:>I like that, as I may be wrong. The problem is that I'm not a linuist >and I lack the correct words. Maybe I have a mindtwist and say
differently from what I think.
After all, there will be no difference in the final phrase...
This is how I see the phrases in my head: "you want to drink" - {bItlhutlh DaneH}. That's a statement. "you drink" is the object of {DaneH}. All fine. Now I change the entire thing to a question adding a question word: WHEN do you want to drink ("please state the time of your desired drinking event"). In this construction, I see it not as the object of the wanting.
Let's not forget the canon construction {HIq Datlhutlh DaneHbogh yIngu'}. So, ?{HIq DatlhutlhDI' poH yIngu'}? -ter'eS
Am 13.07.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Terrence Donnelly:
Let's not forget the canon construction {HIq Datlhutlh DaneHbogh yIngu'}.
So, ?{HIq DatlhutlhDI' poH yIngu'}?
I would go with {tlhutlhmeH poH}, otherwise I'd understand "When you drink beer, tell me the time." -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
So, to summarize all this in a desperate attempt that a beginner has an actual chance to understand.. question word {sentence 1 'e' sentence 2} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about the entire {sentence 1 'e' sentence 2}. {sentence 1 question word 'e' sentence 2} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about sentence 2. question word {sentence 1 neH} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about the entire {sentence 1 neH}. {sentence 1 question word neH} = acceptable if the result is a question, asking about the {neH}. mIv mop je Hurgh On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 13.07.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Terrence Donnelly:
Let's not forget the canon construction {HIq Datlhutlh DaneHbogh yIngu'}.
So, ?{HIq DatlhutlhDI' poH yIngu'}?
I would go with {tlhutlhmeH poH}, otherwise I'd understand "When you drink beer, tell me the time."
-- 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 13 July 2016 at 18:57, Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Let's not forget the canon construction {HIq Datlhutlh DaneHbogh yIngu'}.
Hold on. That's not actually canon, is it? What is the head noun of the {-bogh} clause here? Because *that* is the object of {ngu'}. I don't believe this question is asking the same thing as {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH}. -- De'vID
On 14 July 2016 at 16:21, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 July 2016 at 18:57, Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Let's not forget the canon construction {HIq Datlhutlh DaneHbogh yIngu'}.
Hold on. That's not actually canon, is it?
What is the head noun of the {-bogh} clause here? Because *that* is the object of {ngu'}. I don't believe this question is asking the same thing as {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH}.
Does no one else read this sentence as "Identify the you-drink-alcohol that you want?" Perhaps the problem I have with this sentence will be clearer with a verb other than {neH} (because of the dropped {'e'}): {DoS DaqIp 'e' DanID} "you try to hit a target" *{nuq DaqIp 'e' DanID} "what are you trying to hit?" (question as object) *{DoS DaqIp 'e' DanIDbogh yIngu'} attempt at "identify the target you try to hit" (attempted recast along the suggested lines) The QAO construction is controversial, but apparently consistent with the grammar given in TKD and similar to a canon sentence, {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH}. The recast seems to me to mean something else. The object of {nID} is the sentence {DoS DaqIp}, and transitively that's the object of {ngu'}. If I can make sense of the sentence at all, it means something like "identify that you drink alcohol, which you want". Maybe there is a way to recast this question, but I don't think the suggested solution works. -- De'vID
Am 13.07.2016 um 17:54 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I believe this settles the matter :
Hm... no, I think it does not.
all these months I believed that all qao's are illegal. in dark of the above, I will be qao'ing as there's no tomorrow.
I still think they are illegal. Nothing from that email makes it clear that QAO are legal, especially when using question words a relative pronouns. Please read the email correctly: DloraH wrote 1998: - You can not use a "question" as an object; [...] - So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be to recast if possible. Felix' interpretation of 2011 seems wrong in my opinion, since the phrase is not a real "question" as object; It cannot be used for all the other questions. In this case, it's a normal question where the question word "nuq" is used as a replacement for the answer. It's still a question. If anything, this maybe only works with few questions words, or maybe only with the verb "want"... it's not really clear. I would not generalize that QAO is legal just because of this one example. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 13 July 2016 at 18:23, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I still think they are illegal. Nothing from that email makes it clear that QAO are legal, especially when using question words a relative pronouns.
Please read the email correctly:
DloraH wrote 1998: - You can not use a "question" as an object; [...] - So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be to recast if possible.
Here's the relevant portion of DloraH's report in its entirety: "Hopefully I won't misquote Marc. Lawrence was with us during some of our conversations. The first one I nailed him with was our lovely QAO. Uh-oh. You can not use a "question" as an object; but... it is not known yet if Klingon question words can act as one of those relative things, uh, relative pronoun is it? You guys know what I'm refering to. So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be to recast if possible." Note the quotes around the word "question". If Okrand had really been asked straightforwardly whether a question (any sort of question) can be the object of a sentence, I'd have expected the report to say "You can not use a question as an object" without the quotes. To me, it reads like the questioner was confused about terminology and was using the word "question" (in quotes) to mean "sentences where question words are misused as relative pronouns". The suggestion to recast, as I read it, applies only to sentences where an attempt is being made to use question words as relative pronouns. Maybe DloraH or Lawrence can clear this up.
Felix' interpretation of 2011 seems wrong in my opinion, since the phrase is not a real "question" as object; It cannot be used for all the other questions. In this case, it's a normal question where the question word "nuq" is used as a replacement for the answer. It's still a question. If anything, this maybe only works with few questions words, or maybe only with the verb "want"... it's not really clear.
I would not generalize that QAO is legal just because of this one example.
Perhaps the above report is accurate and Okrand really did say that QAO constructions are illegal, but based on just what's in TKD 6.2.5 and 6.4, there's no reason why they should be. TKD 6.2.5 tells us that one sentence can be the object of another. TKD 6.4 tells us how to form questions. Nothing says that the two sets of rules are exclusive. {nuqDaq maSuv 'e' ra' HoD} "where did the captain order us to fight?"; "the captain ordered us to fight; where do we fight?" {maSuv nuqDaq 'e' ra' HoD} "where did the captain order us to fight?"; "the captain ordered us to fight; where was the captain when he ordered us?" There's also no reason why {nuq} and {'Iv} can't replace a noun in either sentence in a SAO construction. {'Iv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD?} {jagh wISuv 'e' ra' 'Iv?} And do these recastings with {ngu'} any clearer? {DaqDaq maSuv 'e' ra' HoD; Daqvam yIngu'} {nuv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD; nuvvam yIngu'} or maybe {nuv wISuv 'e' ra'bogh HoD yIngu'}, although this could be asking to identify the captain, and it's not clear that sticking {-'e'} on the {nuv} would make it clear that {nuv'e' wISuvbogh} is the intended head noun of {ra'}. I think the idea that QAO constructions are illegal is a rule the community accidentally made up because people were confused about terminology. -- De'vID
Thanks for all your opinions. It made me think about this, and I'm slowly changing my mind about that. Am 14.07.2016 um 11:31 schrieb De'vID:
I think the idea that QAO constructions are illegal is a rule the community accidentally made up because people were confused about terminology.
Actually, this "accidental rule" was one of the first things I learned at the mailing list when I joined it twenty years ago, so it remeind stuck in my brain very intensely. I still remember my question of 1997, maybe it's time to ask again. What woul you think about this phrase? When I wrote it the first time, I tought it to be correct based on TKD: {chay' Duj chenmoHlu' 'e' vISov vIneH} -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
{chay' Duj chenmoHlu' 'e' vISov vIneH} If we disregard the {chay'}, then we have "I want to know that someone creates a ship". According to what was written so far, the {chay'} produces : "how do I want to know that someone creates a ship ?" Which doesn't make sense. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Thanks for all your opinions. It made me think about this, and I'm slowly changing my mind about that.
Am 14.07.2016 um 11:31 schrieb De'vID:
I think the idea that QAO constructions are illegal is a rule the community accidentally made up because people were confused about terminology.
Actually, this "accidental rule" was one of the first things I learned at the mailing list when I joined it twenty years ago, so it remeind stuck in my brain very intensely.
I still remember my question of 1997, maybe it's time to ask again. What woul you think about this phrase? When I wrote it the first time, I tought it to be correct based on TKD:
{chay' Duj chenmoHlu' 'e' vISov vIneH}
-- 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 Thu, 2016-07-14 at 11:31 +0200, De'vID wrote:
On 13 July 2016 at 18:23, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I still think they are illegal. Nothing from that email makes it clear that QAO are legal, especially when using question words a relative pronouns.
Please read the email correctly:
DloraH wrote 1998: - You can not use a "question" as an object; [...] - So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be to recast if possible.
Here's the relevant portion of DloraH's report in its entirety: "Hopefully I won't misquote Marc. Lawrence was with us during some of our conversations. The first one I nailed him with was our lovely QAO. Uh-oh. You can not use a "question" as an object; but... it is not known yet if Klingon question words can act as one of those relative things, uh, relative pronoun is it? You guys know what I'm refering to. So basicly we didn't really get anywhere with this one yet. The safest thing for now would be to recast if possible."
Note the quotes around the word "question". If Okrand had really been asked straightforwardly whether a question (any sort of question) can be the object of a sentence, I'd have expected the report to say "You can not use a question as an object" without the quotes. To me, it reads like the questioner was confused about terminology and was using the word "question" (in quotes) to mean "sentences where question words are misused as relative pronouns".
No, those quotes were not from confusion about the word "question". In plain-text, there is only so much that one can do to express things. We can't bold, can't italicize, you can't see my face or hands. I used quotes to emphasis that I was talking about an actual question. Back then, there was much arguing on this list about QAO. At that convention I even started my question with "Much blood has been spilled..." I believe I even heard someone mutter "Uh-oh", and the look on some of the faces, I think they knew what was coming. MO said we cannot ask a question in a QAO. I think someone put out an example, and MO said he couldn't figure out what it would actually mean. And for the relative pronoun, at the time, MO wasn't sure if Klingon had that, or if it did, would they be the same words, the way English uses the same words for both.
The suggestion to recast, as I read it, applies only to sentences where an attempt is being made to use question words as relative pronouns.
The "recast" meant if you find yourself here, recast. For both questions and pronouns. We know about using [ngu']. "Which weapon do you want?" [nuH DaneHbogh yIngu'] The English is a question, but the Klingon is a command. - DloraH
On 14 July 2016 at 14:00, DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 11:31 +0200, De'vID wrote:
Note the quotes around the word "question". If Okrand had really been asked straightforwardly whether a question (any sort of question) can be the object of a sentence, I'd have expected the report to say "You can not use a question as an object" without the quotes. To me, it reads like the questioner was confused about terminology and was using the word "question" (in quotes) to mean "sentences where question words are misused as relative pronouns".
No, those quotes were not from confusion about the word "question". In plain-text, there is only so much that one can do to express things. We can't bold, can't italicize, you can't see my face or hands. I used quotes to emphasis that I was talking about an actual question. Back then, there was much arguing on this list about QAO. At that convention I even started my question with "Much blood has been spilled..." I believe I even heard someone mutter "Uh-oh", and the look on some of the faces, I think they knew what was coming. MO said we cannot ask a question in a QAO. I think someone put out an example, and MO said he couldn't figure out what it would actually mean. And for the relative pronoun, at the time, MO wasn't sure if Klingon had that, or if it did, would they be the same words, the way English uses the same words for both.
I guess I'll just have to go back and try to understand what the controversy was from the archives. I can't imagine what would be controversial about a sentence like {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH}. OTOH, one can certainly construct QAO sentences which are meaningless, like *{HIq Datlhutlh'a' DaneH}, and which I can understand would be disallowed. It's also fairly easy for an English speaker to misinterpret a QAO construction as a sentence with a relative pronoun, e.g., misinterpret {chay' DaHoH 'e' vISov} as "I know how you killed him". And perhaps attaching the {chay'} to {DaHoH} makes for something hard to understand, and it's easier to parse this sentence to mean "how do I know you killed him", which would be clearer as {DaHoH chay' 'e' vISov}. I can see a case here for banning {qatlh} and {chay'} from the first sentence of a SAO. But I can't see any reason why substituting a noun for {nuq} or {'Iv} in the first sentence of a SAO would cause any problems. That is, I can see problems with some QAOs, but not all of them. It seems that the community wanted a binary answer (all or nothing) and got one. Since the qep'a' is less than a week away, maybe y'all can shed more blood about this with Dr. Okrand.
The suggestion to recast, as I read it, applies only to sentences where an attempt is being made to use question words as relative pronouns.
The "recast" meant if you find yourself here, recast. For both questions and pronouns. We know about using [ngu']. "Which weapon do you want?" [nuH DaneHbogh yIngu'] The English is a question, but the Klingon is a command.
How would you recast a question like {'Iv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD}? -- De'vID
nachwIj 'oy'moH QIn ghomvam.. On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 July 2016 at 14:00, DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 11:31 +0200, De'vID wrote:
Note the quotes around the word "question". If Okrand had really been asked straightforwardly whether a question (any sort of question) can be the object of a sentence, I'd have expected the report to say "You can not use a question as an object" without the quotes. To me, it reads like the questioner was confused about terminology and was using the word "question" (in quotes) to mean "sentences where question words are misused as relative pronouns".
No, those quotes were not from confusion about the word "question". In plain-text, there is only so much that one can do to express things. We can't bold, can't italicize, you can't see my face or hands. I used quotes to emphasis that I was talking about an actual question. Back then, there was much arguing on this list about QAO. At that convention I even started my question with "Much blood has been spilled..." I believe I even heard someone mutter "Uh-oh", and the look on some of the faces, I think they knew what was coming. MO said we cannot ask a question in a QAO. I think someone put out an example, and MO said he couldn't figure out what it would actually mean. And for the relative pronoun, at the time, MO wasn't sure if Klingon had that, or if it did, would they be the same words, the way English uses the same words for both.
I guess I'll just have to go back and try to understand what the controversy was from the archives. I can't imagine what would be controversial about a sentence like {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH}. OTOH, one can certainly construct QAO sentences which are meaningless, like *{HIq Datlhutlh'a' DaneH}, and which I can understand would be disallowed.
It's also fairly easy for an English speaker to misinterpret a QAO construction as a sentence with a relative pronoun, e.g., misinterpret {chay' DaHoH 'e' vISov} as "I know how you killed him". And perhaps attaching the {chay'} to {DaHoH} makes for something hard to understand, and it's easier to parse this sentence to mean "how do I know you killed him", which would be clearer as {DaHoH chay' 'e' vISov}. I can see a case here for banning {qatlh} and {chay'} from the first sentence of a SAO. But I can't see any reason why substituting a noun for {nuq} or {'Iv} in the first sentence of a SAO would cause any problems.
That is, I can see problems with some QAOs, but not all of them. It seems that the community wanted a binary answer (all or nothing) and got one.
Since the qep'a' is less than a week away, maybe y'all can shed more blood about this with Dr. Okrand.
The suggestion to recast, as I read it, applies only to sentences where an attempt is being made to use question words as relative pronouns.
The "recast" meant if you find yourself here, recast. For both questions and pronouns. We know about using [ngu']. "Which weapon do you want?" [nuH DaneHbogh yIngu'] The English is a question, but the Klingon is a command.
How would you recast a question like {'Iv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD}?
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
QIn ghomvamDaq vaghmaH wej QIn tu'lu'.. Hoch QInmeyvam tu'lu' 'ej tagh Hoch QInmmeyvam, the grammarians desk vIlaDta'mo' ! Doj, 'a Dojqu' ngoDvam : vaghmaH wej QIn tu'lu', 'ej yajlaHbe'taH taghwI' ! hahahahaha On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
nachwIj 'oy'moH QIn ghomvam..
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 July 2016 at 14:00, DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 11:31 +0200, De'vID wrote:
Note the quotes around the word "question". If Okrand had really been asked straightforwardly whether a question (any sort of question) can be the object of a sentence, I'd have expected the report to say "You can not use a question as an object" without the quotes. To me, it reads like the questioner was confused about terminology and was using the word "question" (in quotes) to mean "sentences where question words are misused as relative pronouns".
No, those quotes were not from confusion about the word "question". In plain-text, there is only so much that one can do to express things. We can't bold, can't italicize, you can't see my face or hands. I used quotes to emphasis that I was talking about an actual question. Back then, there was much arguing on this list about QAO. At that convention I even started my question with "Much blood has been spilled..." I believe I even heard someone mutter "Uh-oh", and the look on some of the faces, I think they knew what was coming. MO said we cannot ask a question in a QAO. I think someone put out an example, and MO said he couldn't figure out what it would actually mean. And for the relative pronoun, at the time, MO wasn't sure if Klingon had that, or if it did, would they be the same words, the way English uses the same words for both.
I guess I'll just have to go back and try to understand what the controversy was from the archives. I can't imagine what would be controversial about a sentence like {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH}. OTOH, one can certainly construct QAO sentences which are meaningless, like *{HIq Datlhutlh'a' DaneH}, and which I can understand would be disallowed.
It's also fairly easy for an English speaker to misinterpret a QAO construction as a sentence with a relative pronoun, e.g., misinterpret {chay' DaHoH 'e' vISov} as "I know how you killed him". And perhaps attaching the {chay'} to {DaHoH} makes for something hard to understand, and it's easier to parse this sentence to mean "how do I know you killed him", which would be clearer as {DaHoH chay' 'e' vISov}. I can see a case here for banning {qatlh} and {chay'} from the first sentence of a SAO. But I can't see any reason why substituting a noun for {nuq} or {'Iv} in the first sentence of a SAO would cause any problems.
That is, I can see problems with some QAOs, but not all of them. It seems that the community wanted a binary answer (all or nothing) and got one.
Since the qep'a' is less than a week away, maybe y'all can shed more blood about this with Dr. Okrand.
The suggestion to recast, as I read it, applies only to sentences where an attempt is being made to use question words as relative pronouns.
The "recast" meant if you find yourself here, recast. For both questions and pronouns. We know about using [ngu']. "Which weapon do you want?" [nuH DaneHbogh yIngu'] The English is a question, but the Klingon is a command.
How would you recast a question like {'Iv wISuv 'e' ra' HoD}?
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 13 July 2016 at 17:08, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
We got our first question-as-object sentence from Okrand in TalkNow!: nuq Datlhutlh DaneH What do you want to drink? This supports the idea that you can use the pronoun-like (not relative pronoun) question words nuq and 'Iv in the place of the answer, just as TKD describes, even if it's in the first sentence of a sentence-as-object construction.
And in particular, {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH} does *not* mean "you want what you drink".
Would anyone on this mailing list even blink if they heard a Klingon ask {'Iv vIHoH DaneH}? Or misinterpret it as "you want who I kill"?
I would blink, because I'd be thinking, "Oh, it's a question-as-object construction, but it's one of the okay ones."
I'm still not clear on what the criteria are for being not "one of the okay ones". As far as I can see, and perhaps I'm not seeing something, there is nothing wrong from a Klingon grammar perspective with QAO constructions. The problem is really of the question word being misinterpreted as a relative pronoun, because question words and relative pronouns happen to overlap in English (but not in Klingon).
I actually think {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} is a perfectly grammatical Klingon sentence, just one that doesn't mean what Krankor wrote it means.
If it's grammatical, I don't understand what it means.
Hmm. It's quite clear to me what it means, which doesn't mean that it means anything. It also doesn't mean it's easy to express the meaning in English. Okay, do you understand {chay' maSuv 'e' ra'}? And do you accept that this is asking a perfectly sensible question? Maybe one way to think of question words is that they are turning a statement into a question. That's obvious with {nuq} and {'Iv}. {'Iv vIlegh} "who do I see?"; we can think this as "I see a person; who is this person?" It's similar with {chay'}: {chay' maSuv} "how do we fight?"; we can think of it as "we fight; how do we do it?" {maSuv 'e' ra'} "he commands that we fight" {chay' maSuv 'e' ra'} "he command that we fight; how do we fight?", or "how does he command that we fight?" In Klingon, unlike in English, this is unambiguously asking about the manner of fighting, rather than the manner of commanding. Another way to phrase this is perhaps with a parenthetical statement: "how do we, as he command us, fight?" {veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} "now you (pl) begin to understand that I can have a great-warship" {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} "now you (pl) begin to understand that I can have a great-warship; how can I have a great-warship?"; perhaps this can be phrased more naturally as "how can I, as you now begin to understand, have a great-warship?" Admittedly, this is a somewhat convoluted sentence, and perhaps a Klingon would prefer something more economical rather than make what seems to be a parenthetical statement in the English translation, but grammatically, at least, it makes perfect sense to me. (Or, at least it makes as much sense as {chay' maSuv 'e' ra'}.) The above can be contrasted with: {veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH chay' DaH 'e' boyajchoH} "how are you (pl) now beginning to understand that I can have a great-warship?" The placement of {chay'} determines whether the question is about the manner of having or the manner of understanding.
Although they are not spelled out in TKD, based on the TalkNow! example I would probably also accept sentences like:
I'll "translate" each of them into the explicit statement-question form I used above.
nuqDaq bItlhutlh DaneH where do you want to drink?
You want to drink someplace; where is that place?
ghorgh bItlhutlh DaneH when do you want to drink?
You want to drink; when do you want to do it?
HIq 'ar Datlhutlh DaneH how many ales do you want to drink?
You want to drink ales; how many ales?
chay' Datlhutlh DaneH how do you want to drink?
You want to drink it; how?
But, as you say, I wouldn't accept sentences in which the question word is being used as a relative pronoun.
Do you mean you wouldn't accept the Klingon sentences, or the English translations? Because, from what I can tell, there's nothing wrong in Klingon grammar with QAO constructions. (Of course, some such constructions might be nonsensical.) The issue really is the English misinterpretation of them. -- De'vID
On 7/14/2016 4:21 AM, De'vID wrote:
On 13 July 2016 at 17:08, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
We got our first question-as-object sentence from Okrand in TalkNow!: nuq Datlhutlh DaneH What do you want to drink? This supports the idea that you can use the pronoun-like (not relative pronoun) question words nuq and 'Iv in the place of the answer, just as TKD describes, even if it's in the first sentence of a sentence-as-object construction. And in particular, {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH} does *not* mean "you want what you drink".
Would anyone on this mailing list even blink if they heard a Klingon ask {'Iv vIHoH DaneH}? Or misinterpret it as "you want who I kill"? I would blink, because I'd be thinking, "Oh, it's a question-as-object construction, but it's one of the okay ones." I'm still not clear on what the criteria are for being not "one of the okay ones".
That's exactly the problem: assuming we have no blanket rule against QAO, which we might have, the criteria for the okay ones are not clear at all due to insufficient examples. *nuq Datlhutlh DaneH* appears to be a known good example. Beyond that it's unclear to me.
As far as I can see, and perhaps I'm not seeing something, there is nothing wrong from a Klingon grammar perspective with QAO constructions. The problem is really of the question word being misinterpreted as a relative pronoun, because question words and relative pronouns happen to overlap in English (but not in Klingon).
I actually think {chay' veSDuj'a' vIghajlaH DaH 'e' boyajchoH} is a perfectly grammatical Klingon sentence, just one that doesn't mean what Krankor wrote it means. If it's grammatical, I don't understand what it means. Hmm. It's quite clear to me what it means, which doesn't mean that it means anything. It also doesn't mean it's easy to express the meaning in English.
Okay, do you understand {chay' maSuv 'e' ra'}? And do you accept that this is asking a perfectly sensible question?
Sensible question? Yes. Legal grammar? I don't know. What DloraH reported would suggest a recasting would be more appropriate: *SuvmeH to'maj ra'bogh ghaH yIngu'*/identify the our fighting tactics which he commanded./ I recognize that this isn't a case of an inappropriate relative pronoun.
Maybe one way to think of question words is that they are turning a statement into a question. That's obvious with {nuq} and {'Iv}.
But it's also the case that they operate differently than the other question words: they stand in for the answer. Other question words sometimes occupy the same space as the answer, but they don't stand in for it. I agree that there's nothing in TKD to directly contradict the use of QAO, but there are questions about how it would work and whether it's even allowed. I understand /how/ you're creating QAOs and usually what they mean. I'm saying our understanding of them and their legality remains in question (as object). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 13.07.2016 um 16:10 schrieb De'vID:> I was under the impression that what was considered incorrect was
*misinterpreting* the question word in a QAO sentence as a relative pronoun.
Yeeeeeesss - that what I meant :-)
For example, {nuq vIghaj 'e' DaSov} appears to me to be a perfectly good Klingon question meaning "what do you know I have?" Isn't the QAO error just in misinterpreting this sentence to mean "you know what I have" (using {nuq} "what" as a relative pronoun)?
Indeed.
What's the rationale for saying that QAO *constructions* are illegal, rather than just that they shouldn't be *misinterpreted* as statements with relative pronouns?
A subtle difference that should be written down somewhere :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
participants (7)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
DloraH -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel -
Terrence Donnelly