SuStel, there is something I would like to ask you, with regards to nouns in apposition. At another thread we discussed the following: Aurelie:
yaSvaD qama'vaD taj nobmoH HoD jIH: If I saw this sentence without knowing the intented meaning, chances are I would understand, that the {yaSvaD} and {qama'vaD} > are nouns in apposition. So, I would eventually understand, that "the captain gave the knife for the officer and the prisoner". SuStel: I agree that apposition might be a strong interpretation, but the translation would be this: the captain makes the officer, the prisoner, give the knife. Apposition means the two noun phrases are equated with each other. They are not conjoined with an and. Here, with apposition, the officer is a prisoner. > If the captain made two separate people, an officer and a prisoner, give knives, the sentence would be yaSvaD qama'vaD je taj nobmoH HoD. By the way, watch out with your translation. The captain doesn't give the knife to an officer or a prisoner, he makes them give knives to someone unspecified or general.
So, now let me ask you.. Suppose I write the sentence: {Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq qajatlh, latlh be' vImuSHa'} "At Qo'noS at your mother's house I told you, that I love another woman". Do you agree with the above translation, or is it, that due to the absence of a {je} after the {juHDaq}, the meaning becomes "at your mother's house which is Qo'noS I told you, that I love another woman" ? qunnoq
On 9/20/2017 9:02 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Suppose I write the sentence:
{Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq qajatlh, latlh be' vImuSHa'}
"At Qo'noS at your mother's house I told you, that I love another woman".
Do you agree with the above translation, or is it, that due to the absence of a {je} after the {juHDaq}, the meaning becomes "at your mother's house which is Qo'noS I told you, that I love another woman" ?
You could interpret it that way. I don't think the lack of a *je* makes the difference. It could also be interpreted as two separate locatives that both apply simultaneously, one being of a different scope than another. In a cavern, in a canyon Excavating for a mine Dwelt a miner, forty-niner And his daughter, Clementine. In the verse, the locatives /in a cavern/ and /in a canyon/ are not in apposition to each other. The cavern is within the canyon. The subjects of the sentence both have appositional pairs: /a miner/ = /forty-niner/ and /his daughter/ = /Clementine./ In your Klingon sentence, it's possible that *SoSlI' juH* is within the scope of *Qo'noS.* If the sentence did have a *je,* the meaning would be different: *Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq je qajatlh */I speak to you on Kronos and in your mother's home/ Here it's possible that you speak to me in both of those places, but not in a single utterance. One day you speak to me on Kronos; another day you speak to me in my mother's house. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
What actually makes me wonder, is when the two noun phrases are equated with each other and when not. As we discussed, in Aurelie's example {yaSvaD qama'vaD..} the absence of a {je} after the {qama'vaD} has the result that the the officer is a prisoner. However, in the {Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq..} example, the absence of a {je} after the {juHDaq}, doesn't necessarily lead to the two noun phrases being equated with each other. I guess, what I'm trying to understand, is whether there is a rule, as to when the absence of {je} will lead to the equation of the noun phrases with each other and when not. Is there such a rule, or is it something which is decided each time based on context ? Or maybe even on which type-5 noun suffix is actually used ? Because in Aurelie's example we have a {-vaD}, while in mine we have a {-Daq}. qunnoq On Sep 20, 2017 4:36 PM, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/20/2017 9:02 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Suppose I write the sentence:
{Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq qajatlh, latlh be' vImuSHa'}
"At Qo'noS at your mother's house I told you, that I love another woman".
Do you agree with the above translation, or is it, that due to the absence of a {je} after the {juHDaq}, the meaning becomes "at your mother's house which is Qo'noS I told you, that I love another woman" ?
You could interpret it that way. I don't think the lack of a *je* makes the difference. It could also be interpreted as two separate locatives that both apply simultaneously, one being of a different scope than another.
In a cavern, in a canyon Excavating for a mine Dwelt a miner, forty-niner And his daughter, Clementine.
In the verse, the locatives *in a cavern* and *in a canyon* are not in apposition to each other. The cavern is within the canyon. The subjects of the sentence both have appositional pairs: *a miner* = *forty-niner* and *his daughter* = *Clementine.*
In your Klingon sentence, it's possible that *SoSlI' juH* is within the scope of *Qo'noS.*
If the sentence did have a *je,* the meaning would be different:
*Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq je qajatlh **I speak to you on Kronos and in your mother's home*
Here it's possible that you speak to me in both of those places, but not in a single utterance. One day you speak to me on Kronos; another day you speak to me in my mother's house.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/20/2017 9:55 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Is there such a rule, or is it something which is decided each time based on context ? Or maybe even on which type-5 noun suffix is actually used ? Because in Aurelie's example we have a {-vaD}, while in mine we have a {-Daq}.
With *-Daq,* you can have things within things. You can have both things be locative but not equal. Not so with *-vaD:* every beneficiary is individual. You could probably make *-vo'* work like *-Daq.* There is no rule here. We have scant evidence—Voragh has given some—so I'm going on what seems natural to me given both my native English bias and my knowledge of Klingon. If you need a rule of thumb, then mine is this: if multiple noun phrases occupy the same syntactic role in a single sentence and are equal in their scopes, they should be followed by a conjunction, otherwise they must be interpreted in some other way. Other interpretations commonly include apposition or some being subordinate in scope to others. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Basically, if X and Y are nouns, when does "X Y" mean "X's Y", "Y of X", and when it is an apposition? In the old days I used to write "X 'oHbogh Y" for "X which is Y". How would I translate "Maltz's captain" and "Captain Maltz" distinctively? It seems that {matlh HoD} could mean both.
On 9/20/2017 11:48 AM, Anthony Appleyard wrote:
Basically, if X and Y are nouns, when does "X Y" mean "X's Y", "Y of X", and when it is an apposition? In the old days I used to write "X 'oHbogh Y" for "X which is Y".
How would I translate "Maltz's captain" and "Captain Maltz" distinctively? It seems that {matlh HoD} could mean both.
Context, tone of voice, waggling of eyebrows. There is no way to tell them apart strictly through their grammar. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
If in speech there is a special tone to show when {X Y} means "Y which is X" and not "Y of X", it may (ask Okrand) be an idea to put a mark between the words to show this in writing, as in the book name "paq'batlh". ----Original message----
From : sustel@trimboli.name
On 9/20/2017 11:48 AM, Anthony Appleyard wrote:
Basically, if X and Y are nouns, when does "X Y" mean "X's Y", "Y of X", and when it is an apposition? In the old days I used to write "X 'oHbogh Y" for "X which is Y".
How would I translate "Maltz's captain" and "Captain Maltz" distinctively? It seems that {matlh HoD} could mean both.
Context, tone of voice, waggling of eyebrows. There is no way to tell them apart strictly through their grammar.
Am 21.09.2017 um 09:55 schrieb Anthony Appleyard:
If in speech there is a special tone to show when {X Y} means "Y which is X" and not "Y of X", it may (ask Okrand) be an idea to put a mark between the words to show this in writing, as in the book name "paq'batlh".
First, the apostrophe in {paq'batlh} is an archaic form of writing and is wrong according to today's rules. The book of honor is {batlh paq} To distinguish by speaking aloud, I wouldstress the word like this: {pIqarD HOOD} "picard's captain" {PIQARD HoD} "Captain Picard" But you want this in a written form. Since Klingon was intended as a spoken language only in the first place, I doubt we would get a satisfyaing answer to this. I suggest resolving such ambiguouties by adding some context: DaHjaj muSuch HoDwI'. pIqarD 'oH pongDaj'e'. reH pIqarD HoD vIghom 'e' vItIv. DaHjaj muSuch pIqarD HoD. ghawran 'oH pongDaj'e'. pIqarD ra' 'e' tIv ghawran HoD. etc. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
Anthony Appleyard:
If in speech there is a special tone to show when {X Y} means "Y which is X" and not "Y of X", it may (ask Okrand) be an idea to put a mark between the words to show this in writing
What kind of mark would you suggest ? Because placing a qaghwI' could be rather confusing. Let alone the fact that it isn't a mark, but it is a letter. qunnoq On Sep 21, 2017 10:55 AM, "Anthony Appleyard" <a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
If in speech there is a special tone to show when {X Y} means "Y which is X" and not "Y of X", it may (ask Okrand) be an idea to put a mark between the words to show this in writing, as in the book name "paq'batlh".
----Original message---- From : sustel@trimboli.name
On 9/20/2017 11:48 AM, Anthony Appleyard wrote:
Basically, if X and Y are nouns, when does "X Y" mean "X's Y", "Y of X", and when it is an apposition? In the old days I used to write "X 'oHbogh Y" for "X which is Y".
How would I translate "Maltz's captain" and "Captain Maltz" distinctively? It seems that {matlh HoD} could mean both.
Context, tone of voice, waggling of eyebrows. There is no way to tell them apart strictly through their grammar. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 20.09.2017 um 17:48 schrieb Anthony Appleyard:
How would I translate "Maltz's captain" and "Captain Maltz" distinctively? It seems that {matlh HoD} could mean both.
{matlh matlh HoD HoD} "Captain Maltz's captain is loyal." Sometimes, it's just context, or tone. As Okrand usually says: "It's a language, it's not math." -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
Or as I like to say: "It's Klingon, not Vulcan." --Voragh -----Original Message----- Am 20.09.2017 um 17:48 schrieb Anthony Appleyard:
How would I translate "Maltz's captain" and "Captain Maltz" distinctively? It seems that {matlh HoD} could mean both.
Sometimes, it's just context, or tone. As Okrand usually says: "It's a language, it's not math." -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Anthony Appleyard < a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
Basically, if X and Y are nouns, when does "X Y" mean "X's Y", "Y of X", and when it is an apposition? In the old days I used to write "X 'oHbogh Y" for "X which is Y".
How would I translate "Maltz's captain" and "Captain Maltz" distinctively? It seems that {matlh HoD} could mean both.
Absent context specifying otherwise, I would probably assume {matlh HoD} is translated as "Captain Maltz". If you don't think context will differentiate the two meanings of the simple N-N phrase, and you don't want to rephrase the sentence entirely, you could use a longer phrase with a relative clause. "Maltz's captain" might be translated as something like {matlh ra'bogh HoD'e'} "captain who commands Maltz", while "Captain Maltz" could be expanded into {HoD ghaHbogh matlh'e'} "Maltz who is the captain".
tlhIngan juHqo'Daq tlhIng yoSDaq 'oH toQDuj chenmoHlu'meH Daq wa'DIch'e' 1st Construction Site: The Kling District, Klingon Home World. (KBoP) “in the Kling District on the Klingon home world” = one place (i.e. a single shipyard) loghDaq lupDujHom qoDDaq bIlengtaHvIS, nIbuQbogh novpu' DaSuv Battle menacing aliens in a shuttlecraft journey through space. (STX) “inside a shuttlecraft in space” = one place (i.e. a single ship) versus: poSDaq nIHDaq je QamtaHvIS SuvwI'pu', chaH jojDaq yItnIS lopwI' The initiate must pass through a gauntlet of warriors. (S9) “on the left (side) and on the right (side)” = two places (i.e. two separate rows of warriors) --Voragh From: SuStel On 9/20/2017 9:02 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: Suppose I write the sentence: {Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq qajatlh, latlh be' vImuSHa'} "At Qo'noS at your mother's house I told you, that I love another woman". Do you agree with the above translation, or is it, that due to the absence of a {je} after the {juHDaq}, the meaning becomes "at your mother's house which is Qo'noS I told you, that I love another woman" ? You could interpret it that way. I don't think the lack of a je makes the difference. It could also be interpreted as two separate locatives that both apply simultaneously, one being of a different scope than another. In a cavern, in a canyon Excavating for a mine Dwelt a miner, forty-niner And his daughter, Clementine. In the verse, the locatives in a cavern and in a canyon are not in apposition to each other. The cavern is within the canyon. The subjects of the sentence both have appositional pairs: a miner = forty-niner and his daughter = Clementine. In your Klingon sentence, it's possible that SoSlI' juH is within the scope of Qo'noS. If the sentence did have a je, the meaning would be different: Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq je qajatlh I speak to you on Kronos and in your mother's home Here it's possible that you speak to me in both of those places, but not in a single utterance. One day you speak to me on Kronos; another day you speak to me in my mother's house. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you voragh. Are there canon examples of nouns in apposition, with type-5 suffixes other than {-Daq} ? qunnoq On Sep 20, 2017 5:09 PM, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
*tlhIngan juHqo'Daq tlhIng yoSDaq 'oH toQDuj chenmoHlu'meH Daq wa'DIch'e' *
1st Construction Site: The Kling District, Klingon Home World. (KBoP)
“in the Kling District on the Klingon home world” = one place (i.e. a single shipyard)
*loghDaq lupDujHom qoDDaq bIlengtaHvIS*,* nIbuQbogh novpu' DaSuv *
Battle menacing aliens in a shuttlecraft journey through space. (STX)
“inside a shuttlecraft in space” = one place (i.e. a single ship)
versus:
*poSDaq nIHDaq je QamtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'*,* chaH jojDaq yItnIS lopwI'*
The initiate must pass through a gauntlet of warriors. (S9)
“on the left (side) and on the right (side)” = two places (i.e. two separate rows of warriors)
--Voragh
*From:* SuStel
On 9/20/2017 9:02 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Suppose I write the sentence: {Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq qajatlh, latlh be' vImuSHa'} "At Qo'noS at your mother's house I told you, that I love another woman".
Do you agree with the above translation, or is it, that due to the absence of a {je} after the {juHDaq}, the meaning becomes "at your mother's house which is Qo'noS I told you, that I love another woman" ?
You could interpret it that way. I don't think the lack of a *je* makes the difference. It could also be interpreted as two separate locatives that both apply simultaneously, one being of a different scope than another.
In a cavern, in a canyon Excavating for a mine Dwelt a miner, forty-niner And his daughter, Clementine.
In the verse, the locatives *in a cavern* and *in a canyon* are not in apposition to each other. The cavern is within the canyon. The subjects of the sentence both have appositional pairs: *a miner* = *forty-niner* and *his daughter* = *Clementine.*
In your Klingon sentence, it's possible that *SoSlI' juH* is within the scope of *Qo'noS.*
If the sentence did have a *je,* the meaning would be different:
*Qo'noSDaq SoSlI' juHDaq je qajatlh **I speak to you on Kronos and in your mother's home*
Here it's possible that you speak to me in both of those places, but not in a single utterance. One day you speak to me on Kronos; another day you speak to me in my mother's house.
--
SuStel
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
juHqo' Qo'noSvo' loghDaq lengtaHvIS tlhInganpu' During the (aggressive) expansion of the Klingon people from their homeworld of Kronos into space... SP1 Note that only one -vo’ is used. (This is from our X-vo’ Z-Daq discussion of a few weeks ago.) Note that this is true apposition: A = B. Both A and B refer to the exact same thing: juHqo’ = Qo’noS “Kronos, the Homeworld”. A more familiar example would be names; e.g. “Worf’s wife, Jadzia” or “the Starship Enterprise” (i.e. a specific ship). The examples I posted before weren’t apposition but more a narrowing of focus – there’s probably a grammatical name for this -- like a postal address. For example: Milky Way Galaxy, Sol System, Earth, European Union, Greece, Athens, Postal Area 14, Archimedes Street, Building No. 123, Apartment 4B. Each part is a subset of the one before. --Voragh From: mayqel qunenoS Thank you voragh. Are there canon examples of nouns in apposition, with type-5 suffixes other than {-Daq} ? On Sep 20, 2017 5:09 PM, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu<mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu>> wrote: tlhIngan juHqo'Daq tlhIng yoSDaq 'oH toQDuj chenmoHlu'meH Daq wa'DIch'e' 1st Construction Site: The Kling District, Klingon Home World. (KBoP) “in the Kling District on the Klingon home world” = one place (i.e. a single shipyard) loghDaq lupDujHom qoDDaq bIlengtaHvIS, nIbuQbogh novpu' DaSuv Battle menacing aliens in a shuttlecraft journey through space. (STX) “inside a shuttlecraft in space” = one place (i.e. a single ship) --Voragh
participants (6)
-
Anthony Appleyard -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel