Why the half-measure of 'e' neHbe' vavoy?
By saying {'e' neHbe' vavoy} 'a'Setbur clearly took a dump on the rules.. ..which is pretty fine, because hey, who doesn't enjoy giving the finger to the rules every once in a while. But 'a'Setbur, honey, if you're gonna break the rules, then damn it do it well. No half-ass measures. No holding back. Go all the way; don't just say {'e' neHbe' vavoy}; say {'e' neHpu'be' vavoy}. ~ Dana'an klingon bingon all the same
On Sun., Feb. 14, 2021, 12:17 mayqel qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
By saying {'e' neHbe' vavoy} 'a'Setbur clearly took a dump on the rules..
It's long been speculated that {'e'} is used with {neH} if the speaker is referring to a sentence spoken by someone else. So we don't know that she's violating the rules. She might be following a rule we don't know about. -- De'vID
De'vID:
It's long been speculated that {'e'} is used with {neH} if the speaker is referring to a sentence spoken by someone else.
This is very interesting! It's something I'd never heard before. I thought, in fact I was certain, that it was just another one of those randomly happening screen mistakes.. Thanks for sharing. ~ Dana'an I love you maltz
However, there's something I'm wondering with regards to this scene.. How was it that it happened exactly? I mean, the author playing 'a'Setbur received a paper with the klingon dialogue, where the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} was written. So, the million dollar question is "who wrote that paper?" Because if the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} was written by maltz himself, then it'd be sooo tempting to start {'e' neH}ing like there's no tomorrow.. ~ Dana'an I love klingon so much
On 2/14/2021 8:24 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
However, there's something I'm wondering with regards to this scene..
How was it that it happened exactly?
I mean, the author playing 'a'Setbur received a paper with the klingon dialogue, where the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} was written.
So, the million dollar question is "who wrote that paper?"
Because if the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} was written by maltz himself, then it'd be sooo tempting to start {'e' neH}ing like there's no tomorrow..
Marc Okrand wrote the line. When you've got a rule and a single instance of someone breaking that rule, you can't just dump the rule. The rule remains the rule even though it is not absolute. "It should be remembered that even though the rules say 'always' and 'never,' when Klingon is actually spoken these rules are sometimes broken. What the rules represent, in other words, is what Klingon grammarians agree on as the 'best' Klingon." "...a good many of the finer points are not covered..." Without knowing /why /Azetbur breaks the rule, you can't go breaking the rule yourself. Maybe the finer point of the rules that hasn't been discovered yet says that when discussing the desires of your late father, *'e'* may be used with *neH.* Maybe *'e'* can be used on *neH* when the subject of *neH* has the endearment suffix on it. You don't know. I hereby grant you permission to respond with the sentence *'e' neHbe' vavoy* anytime someone states a sentiment that your father does not or did not agree with. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sun., Feb. 14, 2021, 14:35 SuStel, <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/14/2021 8:24 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Because if the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} was written by maltz himself, then it'd be sooo tempting to start {'e' neH}ing like there's no tomorrow..
Marc Okrand wrote the line.
Not quite. Azetbur's original lines had {vavwI'} instead of {vavoy}. The director told the actress to say that word more softly, and the {qaghwI'} became inaudible. Dr. Okrand decided it sounded like {vavoy} and that's how the {-oy} suffix was created. So many of the movie lines were changed because of production and editing reasons that it's hard to attribute intent to Dr. Okrand, whose hands were forced, as it were, to retroactively make official whatever the actors/directors/editors ended up doing. (So it's possible that the {'e'} ended up in that sentence contrary to his original intent.) -- De'vID
FYI, here’s the transcript of the war council on Kronos One (after Gorkon's assassination) as I’ve reconstructed it over the years: Kerla: DIHIvlaHtaHvIS DaH DIHIvnIS! (Attack them now, while we still can!) Khmarr: DIHIvbe'ch[ugh] qo'chajDaq toy'wI''a' DImoj. (?) (Attack or be slaves in their world.) Grokh: Qo'! pe'vIl DIHIvlaH, <QaplaH> tlhob <be---HaH > (??) -or- <QaplaH <pla'> pe'vIl <or: Qapla' ghobe' laH'a'> (??) (We can take whole by force, what they propose to divide.) Azetbur: ghu'maj Dayajbe'law', Sa'. (You don't seem to grasp our situation, General.) Azetbur: notlh veS... 'a tugh manotlhchoH je maH. (War is...obsolete. As we are in danger of becoming.) Kerla: QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS. ("Better to die on our feet than live on our knees.") Azetbur: 'e' neHbe' vavwI' [or vavoy] (That wasn't what my father wanted.) Chang: Your father was killed for what he wanted. [In English] Note that Azetbur was immediately responding to Kerla’s quotation. In fact, Chang also refers to “what he wanted” (albeit in English). And yes, before you ask, Grokh’s line was nearly unintelligible even though we have the subtitle and I’ve included a couple of versions I’ve collected. Has anyone finally figured out what the actor was trying to say? -- Voragh _____________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of mayqel qunen'oS However, there's something I'm wondering with regards to this scene.. How was it that it happened exactly? I mean, the author playing 'a'Setbur received a paper with the klingon dialogue, where the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} was written. So, the million dollar question is "who wrote that paper?" Because if the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} was written by maltz himself, then it'd be sooo tempting to start {'e' neH}ing like there's no tomorrow..
voragh:
FYI, here’s the transcript of the war council on Kronos One (after Gorkon's assassination) as I’ve reconstructed it over the years: Grokh: Qo'! pe'vIl DIHIvlaH, <QaplaH> tlhob <be---HaH > (??) -or- <QaplaH <pla'> pe'vIl <or: Qapla' ghobe' laH'a'> (??) (We can take whole by force, what they propose to divide.)
I've wondering for years what the jay' Grokh was actually saying. All I understood was a {o He o aH o e Ha HaH}. At first I thought it was my fault I couldn't understand a word, but now, your comments verified what I've been suspecting all along: Grokh was hammered by romulan ale, so he couldn't speak clearly.. Other that, I don't suppose we have a Ca'Non translation of the name "Kerla", do we? He's by far my favorite klingon in st6. ~ Dana'an o He o aH o e Ha HaH
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 18:35, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Grokh: Qo'! pe'vIl DIHIvlaH, <QaplaH> tlhob <be---HaH > (??) -or-
<QaplaH <pla'> pe'vIl <or: Qapla' ghobe' laH'a'> (??)
(We can take whole by force, what they propose to divide.)
[...]
And yes, before you ask, Grokh’s line was nearly unintelligible even though we have the subtitle and I’ve included a couple of versions I’ve collected. Has anyone finally figured out what the actor was trying to say?
Dr. Okrand didn't remember the original line when I asked him about it, but acknowledged that it had been flubbed. In that case, recovery is likely impossible. The reconstruction which I have in the latest draft of my Klingon subtitles for Star Trek VI has this: {Qang, wa' naQ'e' pe'vIl wItlhaplaH, Dol lulaghpa'.} Anyone who's interested can listen to it here: https://youtu.be/ak6Gln1ACnA?t=56 Admittedly, it's not an exact match, but it was as close as I was able to get and still have something resembling the meaning of the English subtitles. {pe'vIl}, "forcefully, by force", {naQ} "be full, whole, entire, complete", and {lagh} "take apart, disassemble" were likely invented for this line, as they appear in the Appendix of TKD and match the intended meanings, but only {pe'vIl} can be heard clearly. {wav} "divide" might've been intended to be in this sentence based on the meaning, but if so, it was mispronounced. (Where I have {wa'}, the actor actually said something like {wawa}, which might've been {wav}.) -- De'vID
On 2/14/2021 6:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
By saying {'e' neHbe' vavoy} 'a'Setbur clearly took a dump on the rules..
..which is pretty fine, because hey, who doesn't enjoy giving the finger to the rules every once in a while.
But 'a'Setbur, honey, if you're gonna break the rules, then damn it do it well. No half-ass measures. No holding back. Go all the way; don't just say {'e' neHbe' vavoy}; say {'e' neHpu'be' vavoy}.
Two things. First, another rule is that you can't have a type 7 verb suffix on the verb after the pronoun *'e'.* Yes, the book says "the second verb" instead of "the verb after" and there's only one verb here, but you're still obviously breaking the rule. Second, what Azetbur is expressing here isn't perfective. She's not looking back on the entire act of wanting and seeing it as a completed whole, nor is she talking about the time that the wanting came to an end. She talking about her father's desire. This is not perfective. You still tend to use *-pu'* as a tense-marker instead of a perfective-marker. *-pu'* doesn't mean /happened before/ — that's tense. It means /expressed as a completed whole/ or /comes to an end in the moment being described./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
You still tend to use -pu' as a tense- marker instead of a perfective-marker. - pu' doesn't mean happened before — that's tense. It means expressed as a completed whole or comes to an end in the moment being described.
I thought that since at the moment when 'a'Serbut says the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} her father is dead, his desire is a completed event, thus the (rule-breaking) perfective on the {neH} of the sao. ~ Dana'an remain klingon
On 2/14/2021 8:31 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
You still tend to use -pu' as a tense- marker instead of a perfective-marker. - pu' doesn't mean happened before — that's tense. It means expressed as a completed whole or comes to an end in the moment being described.
I thought that since at the moment when 'a'Serbut says the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} her father is dead, his desire is a completed event, thus the (rule-breaking) perfective on the {neH} of the sao.
She was describing what her father didn't want, not what her father finished not wanting. You don't use the perfective suffix because something is over now. You use it because you're expressing something as completed. If you're expressing something as it existed in the past, that's not expressing it as completed. *wa'Hu' jIQuch.*/Yesterday, I was happy./ I'm not going to use the perfective here because I'm describing my state as it existed yesterday, not the ending of my happiness. *bIpawpu'DI', qagh vIneH.*/When you arrived, I wanted gagh./ I'm describing your arrival as completed: you're standing before me. I'm describing my desire without the perfective, because my desire is not completed when you arrive. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel, the lack of tense, but presence of perfective in Klingon is a major stumbling block for humans speaking Klingon, and I respect you for your unusual clarity both in understanding and explaining this bit of Klingon grammar, as well as your patience doing it repeatedly as need arises. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 14, 2021, at 8:43 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/14/2021 8:31 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
You still tend to use -pu' as a tense- marker instead of a perfective-marker. - pu' doesn't mean happened before — that's tense. It means expressed as a completed whole or comes to an end in the moment being described.
I thought that since at the moment when 'a'Serbut says the {'e' neHbe' vavoy} her father is dead, his desire is a completed event, thus the (rule-breaking) perfective on the {neH} of the sao. She was describing what her father didn't want, not what her father finished not wanting. You don't use the perfective suffix because something is over now. You use it because you're expressing something as completed. If you're expressing something as it existed in the past, that's not expressing it as completed.
wa'Hu' jIQuch. Yesterday, I was happy.
I'm not going to use the perfective here because I'm describing my state as it existed yesterday, not the ending of my happiness.
bIpawpu'DI', qagh vIneH. When you arrived, I wanted gagh.
I'm describing your arrival as completed: you're standing before me. I'm describing my desire without the perfective, because my desire is not completed when you arrive.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
SuStel:
bIpawpu'DI', qagh vIneH. When you arrived, I wanted gagh. I'm describing your arrival as completed: you're standing before me. I'm describing my desire without the perfective, because my desire is not completed when you arrive.
Ok, I understand this. But let me ask you something.. Yesterday, a romulan beams down in my room, punches me, and then leaves. Looking back on the event, should I write: {jIHDaq narghpu'DI', muqIppu'} or should I write {jIHDaq narghpu'DI', muqIp}? Instinctively, I'd choose to say {jIHDaq narghpu'DI', muqIppu'} ("as soon as he has appeared he has hit me"). But I get the impression that this could be understood as "by the time he appeared he had already hit me", i.e. the hitting took place before the romulan's arrival. ~ Dana'an the ancient cat I want alive the rest I'll grind beneath my boot
On 2/14/2021 10:09 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
bIpawpu'DI', qagh vIneH. When you arrived, I wanted gagh. I'm describing your arrival as completed: you're standing before me. I'm describing my desire without the perfective, because my desire is not completed when you arrive.
Ok, I understand this. But let me ask you something..
Yesterday, a romulan beams down in my room, punches me, and then leaves.
Looking back on the event, should I write: {jIHDaq narghpu'DI', muqIppu'} or should I write {jIHDaq narghpu'DI', muqIp}?
Instinctively, I'd choose to say {jIHDaq narghpu'DI', muqIppu'} ("as soon as he has appeared he has hit me"). But I get the impression that this could be understood as "by the time he appeared he had already hit me", i.e. the hitting took place before the romulan's arrival.
It depends on whether you are describing being in the middle of the event or being at a point after the event. I'm not going to demonstrate with the word *qIp*/hit,/ because the present, past, and participle forms of /hit/ are all the same, obscuring the point. I'll use the word *legh*/see /(which has past and participle forms /saw/ and /seen/). // I might be telling you a story and expressing my perspective as part of that story: *jIHDaq narghpu'DI', mulegh.*/As soon as he had appeared at my location, he sees me./ The arrival is a completed event from this point of view, and the seeing occurs now. I'm not describing being in the moment /after/ the seeing, so the seeing is not completed and hence not perfective. Or I might be giving you a list of events that occurred, and now we're looking back at them: *jIHDaq narghpu'DI', muleghpu'.*/As soon as he had appeared at my location, he saw me./ The arrival is a completed event that sets the context for the event of seeing, which from our current viewpoint is also a completed event. Which one you choose depends on the context in which you are speaking and the viewpoint which that context demands. Do you want to put the listener in the middle of the action, or do you want to report on events at a temporal remove? For any given sentence, does the verb's activity reach beyond the moment you are expressing? *wa'Hu' jIHDaq narghpu'DI', jIQuch.*/As soon as he had appeared at my location yesterday, I was happy./ Here I would not use perfective no matter whether it was an in-the-moment expression or an after-the-fact expression because I'm not describing an event that is completed in the moment I describe it. I don't experience a moment of happiness that then ends; I'm simply describing what my state happened to be when he appeared. If I want to say that I /became/ happy at that moment, /becoming happy/ is a momentary action, and we are again back to deciding whether I'm in the moment or after the fact. *wa'Hu' jIHDaq narghpu'DI', jIQuchchoH.* I'd use this to put you in the moment of becoming happy. *wa'Hu' jIHDaq narghpu'DI', jIQuchchoHpu'.* I'd use this to report the moment of becoming happy in an after-action kind of way. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin