Can we say {qarbe''a'} ?
Read: wagh vIghro'mey tIQ, qar'a' ? ancient cats are expensive, is it accurate ? This is correct. Now, read this too: wagh vIghro'mey tIQ, qarbe''a' ? ancient cats are expensive, isn't it accurate ? Is the above correct ? And if yes, is there any difference in meaning compared to the first sentence ? Because I can't understand any difference in meaning, if any.. ~ m. qunen'oS learn klingon, we have cookies
Technically, both questions are asking the same thing with a binary answer. Each question would get the opposite answer of the other question. Meanwhile, Maltz has explained that following a statement with {qar’a’?} turns the statement into a “yes/no” question with the assumed answer being “Yes.” You are expecting that the statement is true and accurate, and you are seeking confirmation. A “No” answer would tell the person they have made an inaccurate statement. The second version of the question is not one that Maltz has presented to us, and it contains a trap that could easily trip up a person answering. Keep in mind that “Isn’t it accurate?” is a contraction for “Is it not accurate,” so if you think about it, you would say either, “Yes, it is not accurate,” or you would say, “No, it is not not accurate.” But if you don’t think about it, you’ll say, “Yes,” when you mean “No, it is not not accurate,” or you’ll say, “No,” when you mean, “Yes, it is not accurate.” So, while there are no grammatical errors in the second sentence, the first one will always be preferable for clear communication. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 7, 2019, at 2:41 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Read:
wagh vIghro'mey tIQ, qar'a' ? ancient cats are expensive, is it accurate ?
This is correct.
Now, read this too:
wagh vIghro'mey tIQ, qarbe''a' ? ancient cats are expensive, isn't it accurate ?
Is the above correct ? And if yes, is there any difference in meaning compared to the first sentence ? Because I can't understand any difference in meaning, if any..
~ m. qunen'oS learn klingon, we have cookies
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
I would interpret {qarbe’’a’} as asking me to confirm that a statement is inaccurate. Since we are asking if the information is {qarbe’}. vagh vIghro’ ghaj qurgh, qar’a’? “qurgh has 5 cats, is that correct?” loS vIghro ghaj qurgh,qarbe’’a’? “qurgh has four cats, is that incorrect?” —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2019, at 14:52, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Technically, both questions are asking the same thing with a binary answer. Each question would get the opposite answer of the other question.
Meanwhile, Maltz has explained that following a statement with {qar’a’?} turns the statement into a “yes/no” question with the assumed answer being “Yes.” You are expecting that the statement is true and accurate, and you are seeking confirmation. A “No” answer would tell the person they have made an inaccurate statement.
The second version of the question is not one that Maltz has presented to us, and it contains a trap that could easily trip up a person answering. Keep in mind that “Isn’t it accurate?” is a contraction for “Is it not accurate,” so if you think about it, you would say either, “Yes, it is not accurate,” or you would say, “No, it is not not accurate.” But if you don’t think about it, you’ll say, “Yes,” when you mean “No, it is not not accurate,” or you’ll say, “No,” when you mean, “Yes, it is not accurate.”
So, while there are no grammatical errors in the second sentence, the first one will always be preferable for clear communication.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 7, 2019, at 2:41 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Read:
wagh vIghro'mey tIQ, qar'a' ? ancient cats are expensive, is it accurate ?
This is correct.
Now, read this too:
wagh vIghro'mey tIQ, qarbe''a' ? ancient cats are expensive, isn't it accurate ?
Is the above correct ? And if yes, is there any difference in meaning compared to the first sentence ? Because I can't understand any difference in meaning, if any..
~ m. qunen'oS learn klingon, we have cookies
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/7/2019 3:09 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
I would interpret {qarbe’’a’} as asking me to confirm that a statement is inaccurate. Since we are asking if the information is {qarbe’}.
vagh vIghro’ ghaj qurgh, qar’a’? “qurgh has 5 cats, is that correct?”
loS vIghro ghaj qurgh,qarbe’’a’? “qurgh has four cats, is that incorrect?”
Except *qar'a'* is a recognized feature of the language, while *qarbe''a'* is not. I don't think Klingons who hear *qar'a'* are thinking that it means /is it correct?/ It would come across to them more like /amiright?/ It's a thing you say, not a sentence to be parsed. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Except qar'a' is a recognized feature of the language, while qarbe''a' is not. I don't think Klingons who hear qar'a' are thinking that it means is it correct? It would come across to them more like amiright? It's a thing you say, not a sentence to be parsed.
While I agree that Klingon’s likely don’t parse it that way intuitively, the idiomatic understanding is clearly derived from it’s literal meaning. qarbe’’a’ is both grammatical and parseable — if not commonly heard as an idiomatic expression. Likely {muj’a’} would be more direct; but playing on {qar’a’}, the {qarbe’’a’} seems like it would signal the asker’s increased doubt rather than uncertainty — shades of meaning.
On 5/7/2019 3:27 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
Except *qar'a'* is a recognized feature of the language, while *qarbe''a'* is not. I don't think Klingons who hear *qar'a'* are thinking that it means /is it correct?/ It would come across to them more like /amiright?/ It's a thing you say, not a sentence to be parsed.
While I agree that Klingon’s likely don’t parse it that way intuitively, the idiomatic understanding is clearly derived from it’s literal meaning.
qarbe’’a’ is both grammatical and parseable — if not commonly heard as an idiomatic expression. Likely {muj’a’} would be more direct; but playing on {qar’a’}, the {qarbe’’a’} seems like it would signal the asker’s increased doubt rather than uncertainty — shades of meaning.
Yes. But a Klingon hearing *qarbe''a'* would not simply reverse the sense of *qar'a';* he or she would have to parse it as a separate sentence, and so their alertness would be raised. The two are not, I think, as interchangeable as your post suggests. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 5/7/2019 3:36 PM, SuStel wrote:
On 5/7/2019 3:27 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
Except *qar'a'* is a recognized feature of the language, while *qarbe''a'* is not. I don't think Klingons who hear *qar'a'* are thinking that it means /is it correct?/ It would come across to them more like /amiright?/ It's a thing you say, not a sentence to be parsed.
While I agree that Klingon’s likely don’t parse it that way intuitively, the idiomatic understanding is clearly derived from it’s literal meaning.
qarbe’’a’ is both grammatical and parseable — if not commonly heard as an idiomatic expression. Likely {muj’a’} would be more direct; but playing on {qar’a’}, the {qarbe’’a’} seems like it would signal the asker’s increased doubt rather than uncertainty — shades of meaning.
Yes. But a Klingon hearing *qarbe''a'* would not simply reverse the sense of *qar'a';* he or she would have to parse it as a separate sentence, and so their alertness would be raised. The two are not, I think, as interchangeable as your post suggests.
Without a word from Okrand otherwise, one could not, for instance, correctly say *De' Sov qarbe''a' HoD,* but one CAN say *De' Sov qar'a' HoD*/The captain knows the information, right?/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Actually, this is what I don't understand.. For a moment f*** tkd and Ca'Non.. f*** the known meaning of {qar'a'} too.. What the jay' does {qarbe''a'} mean ? Does it mean "isn't that accurate?" or does it mean "is that incorrect?" ? Or does it mean both ? Or can it mean both ? ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non Ca'NonoywIj 'IH..
I disagree with charghwI’: qar — be accurate qarbe’ — not accurate =inaccurate ‘a’ — interrogative qarbe’’a’ — it is not accurate, yes/no? = is it inaccurate I believe charghwI’ parsed this is “is it not accurate”, which is a trap in English; by substituting “inaccurate” for “not accurate” we can avoid the trap. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2019, at 15:20, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, this is what I don't understand..
For a moment f*** tkd and Ca'Non.. f*** the known meaning of {qar'a'} too..
What the jay' does {qarbe''a'} mean ?
Does it mean "isn't that accurate?" or does it mean "is that incorrect?" ? Or does it mean both ? Or can it mean both ?
~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non Ca'NonoywIj 'IH..
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
And I’m a Capricorn with Saturn rising — a double-Capricorn, with a grand trine involving exclusively Earth sign planets. And I’m totally with SuStel on this one. Here’s the root of the problem: Okrand gave us an idiomatic use of {qar’a’} AS A SECOND VERB IN A SENTENCE THAT ALREADY HAS A MAIN VERB. There is no grammatical justification for this outside of the context of this exception that Okrand points out. You can’t just do this with verbs in general. Basically, a normal Klingon sentence has a main verb with no Type 9 verb suffix. The Type 9 suffix {-jaj} is special, and a sentence with a verb with {-jaj} will not have a second verb with no Type 9 suffix. The only main verb will have {-jaj}, and the nouns might be moved around from their usual positions, because, hey, {-jaj} is special. The Type 9 suffix {-‘a’} on the main verb turns a statement into a yes/no question. There will be no second verb in this sentence that lacks a Type 9 suffix… … except for this weird case in which adding {qar’a’} after the main verb, which lacks a Type 9 suffix, either before or after the subject of that main verb converts the statement into a yes/no question with the expectation that the answer will be “yes”. You are open to being told otherwise, but you are guessing that the answer is “yes”. You might even be openly suggesting that it might be good for one’s near-future well-being for them to agree with you. [but mostly, this really helps keeping your lips moving when dubbing in Klingon for a scene originally shot in English that has too many syllables in it.] So, if you use {qarbe’’a’} in place of {qar’a’}, you have no grammatical justification for adding it as a second verb in the same sentence. It’s not really a dependent clause. The suffix {-‘a’} does not turn a main verb into a dependent clause. Any verb except this {qar’a’} remains the main verb of the sentence when you add {-‘a’} to it. So, if you use {qarbe’’a’} following a statement, you’ve just added a period between the previous statement and {qarbe’’a’}. You no longer have a yes/no question with the assumption that the answer is probably yes. You are just saying something, and we start out from scratch figuring out what it means. And I challenge the idea that {qarbe’} means “inaccurate” as somehow distinguishable from “not accurate”. It means “not accurate”. One might wish for it to mean something other than “not accurate” for the purpose of argument, but were one to make that suggestion, one would be… not accurate. Keep in mind that when an English speaker says, “Isn’t that right?” it may be intended to mean the same thing as saying, “That’s right, right?, but it’s the same mindless looseness with words that makes “I could care less,” mean the same thing as “I couldn’t care less.” In fact, if you couldn’t care less, you don’t care, but if you could care less, then obviously you do care, at least a little bit, just like Al Jankovic points out in Word Crimes. If one actually considers what one is saying, then the negation of a thing is not equal to the thing being negated, so “Isn’t that right?” is not the same as “That’s right, right?” We just THINK it means the same thing because we’ve heard it that way a lot and we never thought about it enough to question badly constructed slang. We just keep repeating it out of mindless habit for generations. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 7, 2019, at 3:30 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree with charghwI’:
qar — be accurate qarbe’ — not accurate =inaccurate ‘a’ — interrogative qarbe’’a’ — it is not accurate, yes/no? = is it inaccurate
I believe charghwI’ parsed this is “is it not accurate”, which is a trap in English; by substituting “inaccurate” for “not accurate” we can avoid the trap.
—jevreH
Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2019, at 15:20, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
Actually, this is what I don't understand..
For a moment f*** tkd and Ca'Non.. f*** the known meaning of {qar'a'} too..
What the jay' does {qarbe''a'} mean ?
Does it mean "isn't that accurate?" or does it mean "is that incorrect?" ? Or does it mean both ? Or can it mean both ?
~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non Ca'NonoywIj 'IH..
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:46 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
So, if you use {qarbe’’a’} following a statement, you’ve just added a period between the previous statement and {qarbe’’a’}. You no longer have a yes/no question with the assumption that the answer is probably yes. You are just saying something, and we start out from scratch figuring out what it means.
You probably wouldn't have to start entirely from scratch. If someone says *wagh vIghro'mey tIQ. qarbe''a'?*, even though this isn't a usual tag question, I can deduce that *qarbe''a'* is probably supposed to refer to the previous statement. (Perhaps they originally said *wagh vIghro'mey tIQ* confidently, but then realized they weren't 100% sure, so they added *qarbe''a'*, in the sense of "...am I wrong?") It might not have the same connotations of expecting a "yes" answer, but you're still asking about the accuracy of a statement.
On May 8, 2019, at 10:55, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
You probably wouldn't have to start entirely from scratch. If someone says wagh vIghro'mey tIQ. qarbe''a'?, even though this isn't a usual tag question, I can deduce that qarbe''a' is probably supposed to refer to the previous statement. (Perhaps they originally said wagh vIghro'mey tIQ confidently, but then realized they weren't 100% sure, so they added qarbe''a', in the sense of "...am I wrong?") It might not have the same connotations of expecting a "yes" answer, but you're still asking about the accuracy of a statement.
This was my original assumed usage, based on my lack of knowledge from qar’a’ being able to exist as a second verb in the same phrase (not having fully read the TKD addendum). This is the usage that I figured would be grammatical, if “unexpected”. But using an unexpected phrasing is often a signalling device situationally desired for it’s altered connotations — as I’ve argued previously. —jevreH
If you like inviting someone to give you a wrong answer because you and they don’t agree on exactly what “Yes” means, in response to {qarbe’’a’}, then by all means, say {qarbe’’a’.} charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 8, 2019, at 3:07 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 2019, at 10:55, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com <mailto:niqolay0@gmail.com>> wrote:
You probably wouldn't have to start entirely from scratch. If someone says wagh vIghro'mey tIQ. qarbe''a'?, even though this isn't a usual tag question, I can deduce that qarbe''a' is probably supposed to refer to the previous statement. (Perhaps they originally said wagh vIghro'mey tIQ confidently, but then realized they weren't 100% sure, so they added qarbe''a', in the sense of "...am I wrong?") It might not have the same connotations of expecting a "yes" answer, but you're still asking about the accuracy of a statement.
This was my original assumed usage, based on my lack of knowledge from qar’a’ being able to exist as a second verb in the same phrase (not having fully read the TKD addendum).
This is the usage that I figured would be grammatical, if “unexpected”. But using an unexpected phrasing is often a signalling device situationally desired for it’s altered connotations — as I’ve argued previously.
—jevreH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
{qarbe’’a’} is only confusing if you code it into English — “isn’t that right”, which has become an idiomatic expression IN ENGLISH. The meaning of {qarbe’’a’} is clearly (when read in Klingon) closer to “Is it inaccurate” which is a clearly unambiguous question. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2019, at 15:24, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
If you like inviting someone to give you a wrong answer because you and they don’t agree on exactly what “Yes” means, in response to {qarbe’’a’}, then by all means, say {qarbe’’a’.}
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 8, 2019, at 3:07 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 2019, at 10:55, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
You probably wouldn't have to start entirely from scratch. If someone says wagh vIghro'mey tIQ. qarbe''a'?, even though this isn't a usual tag question, I can deduce that qarbe''a' is probably supposed to refer to the previous statement. (Perhaps they originally said wagh vIghro'mey tIQ confidently, but then realized they weren't 100% sure, so they added qarbe''a', in the sense of "...am I wrong?") It might not have the same connotations of expecting a "yes" answer, but you're still asking about the accuracy of a statement.
This was my original assumed usage, based on my lack of knowledge from qar’a’ being able to exist as a second verb in the same phrase (not having fully read the TKD addendum).
This is the usage that I figured would be grammatical, if “unexpected”. But using an unexpected phrasing is often a signalling device situationally desired for it’s altered connotations — as I’ve argued previously.
—jevreH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
So, what I’m telling you is that if you write something to a Klingon speaker and use {qarbe’’a’}, odds are pretty good that person will be translating your Klingon into English, which heightens the odds that miscommunication will ensue. Especially since you don’t really have a reason to use {qarbe’’a’} in any approximation to the way that {qarbe’} is commonly used in Klingon. You have verb suffixes to describe your degree of certainty of any verb’s action. Why do you need to say something and then ask if what you said is not accurate? No! Never mind. I keep forgetting! Poetry. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 8, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
{qarbe’’a’} is only confusing if you code it into English — “isn’t that right”, which has become an idiomatic expression IN ENGLISH.
The meaning of {qarbe’’a’} is clearly (when read in Klingon) closer to “Is it inaccurate” which is a clearly unambiguous question.
—jevreH
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2019, at 15:24, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote:
If you like inviting someone to give you a wrong answer because you and they don’t agree on exactly what “Yes” means, in response to {qarbe’’a’}, then by all means, say {qarbe’’a’.}
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 8, 2019, at 3:07 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com <mailto:jmclark85@gmail.com>> wrote:
On May 8, 2019, at 10:55, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com <mailto:niqolay0@gmail.com>> wrote:
You probably wouldn't have to start entirely from scratch. If someone says wagh vIghro'mey tIQ. qarbe''a'?, even though this isn't a usual tag question, I can deduce that qarbe''a' is probably supposed to refer to the previous statement. (Perhaps they originally said wagh vIghro'mey tIQ confidently, but then realized they weren't 100% sure, so they added qarbe''a', in the sense of "...am I wrong?") It might not have the same connotations of expecting a "yes" answer, but you're still asking about the accuracy of a statement.
This was my original assumed usage, based on my lack of knowledge from qar’a’ being able to exist as a second verb in the same phrase (not having fully read the TKD addendum).
This is the usage that I figured would be grammatical, if “unexpected”. But using an unexpected phrasing is often a signalling device situationally desired for it’s altered connotations — as I’ve argued previously.
—jevreH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Sent from my iPad
On May 8, 2019, at 16:08, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
You have verb suffixes to describe your degree of certainty of any verb’s action. Why do you need to say something and then ask if what you said is not accurate?
Poetry might be one case. As I’ve said, one might just as easily use {muj’a’} for many of them. We can have some fun with it: {los boq wej, chen vagh!} jatlh ghojwI’... ‘a qarbe’’a’? “Three plus four is five” said a student... but that’s not right? (That’s rough to translate) {los boq wej, chen vagh!} jatlh ghojwI’... ‘a muj’a’? “Three plus four is five” said a student... but is that wrong? {los boq wej, chen vagh!} jatlh ghojwI’... ‘a muj qar’a’? “Three plus four is five” said a student... but that’s wrong, isn’t it? {los boq wej, chen vagh!} jatlh ghojwI’... ‘a qarbe’ qar’a’? “Three plus four is five” said a student... but that’s not right, right? ({qarbe’ qar’a’} is kinda fun to say...) We can also use our affixes to make it more fun: ... mujchu’’a’ — isn’t that clearly wrong? ...qarbe’ba’ qar’a’ — that’s obviously not right, right? This is the beauty of language — to me, at least — being able to explore and (hopefully) use it’s different inflections and possibilities for varied and interesting communication. What’s the point of human(oid) expression — the arts and humanities — if the desire is just to communicate within the strictest, most literal, and most direct manner possible? There’s a multitude of ways to say the same thing, and each one feels different and conveys a different intention, shouldn’t we explore them? Embrace them? —jevreH
On 5/8/2019 9:46 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Basically, a normal Klingon sentence has a main verb with no Type 9 verb suffix.
The Type 9 suffix {-jaj} is special, and a sentence with a verb with {-jaj} will not have a second verb with no Type 9 suffix. The only main verb will have {-jaj}, and the nouns might be moved around from their usual positions, because, hey, {-jaj} is special.
The Type 9 suffix {-‘a’} on the main verb turns a statement into a yes/no question. There will be no second verb in this sentence that lacks a Type 9 suffix…
Here's a completely tangential observation. Type 9 suffixes do one of three things. 1. Turn a verb into a noun. *-wI', -ghach.* 2. Turn a verbal clause into a dependent clause. *-bogh, -chugh, -DI', -meH, -mo', -pa', -vIS.* 3. Change the mood of the sentence. * -'a'* gives the sentence the interrogative mood. * -jaj* gives the sentence the optative mood (thanks QeS). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I don’t think this is tangential. I think it’s essential and clarifying. Thank you for providing it. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 8, 2019, at 10:59 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/8/2019 9:46 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Basically, a normal Klingon sentence has a main verb with no Type 9 verb suffix.
The Type 9 suffix {-jaj} is special, and a sentence with a verb with {-jaj} will not have a second verb with no Type 9 suffix. The only main verb will have {-jaj}, and the nouns might be moved around from their usual positions, because, hey, {-jaj} is special.
The Type 9 suffix {-‘a’} on the main verb turns a statement into a yes/no question. There will be no second verb in this sentence that lacks a Type 9 suffix… Here's a completely tangential observation.
Type 9 suffixes do one of three things.
1. Turn a verb into a noun. -wI', -ghach.
2. Turn a verbal clause into a dependent clause. -bogh, -chugh, -DI', -meH, -mo', -pa', -vIS.
3. Change the mood of the sentence. -'a' gives the sentence the interrogative mood. -jaj gives the sentence the optative mood (thanks QeS).
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/7/2019 3:20 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
For a moment f*** tkd and Ca'Non.. f*** the known meaning of {qar'a'} too..
What the jay' does {qarbe''a'} mean ?
Does it mean "isn't that accurate?" or does it mean "is that incorrect?" ? Or does it mean both ? Or can it mean both ?
The two mean the same thing. Now that you know what *qarbe''a'* means, kindly go back to using *qar'a'* as described in TKD when uttering tag questions. (By the way, one of the translations given in TKD for *qar'a'* is /isn't that so?/ Notice the negative in the English translation. Now everyone can relax.) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel, A point I tried to make in my previous reply was that a use of the irregular {qarbe’’a’} is unusual, and would draw attention to it’s use over the more normal {qar’a’}. You see this tactic used frequently as a signalling device for specific intentionallities in academic writing, precisely because it calls attention to itself. I maintain that it is perfectly grammatical, and parseable, and — in the right context — desirable (depending on the intention of the speaker). If we follow your logic of “Okrand never used it that way” too far, we can easily arrive at an extreme of only using sentences that Okrand used… but, why bother having grammatical rules if we don’t allow ourselves room to communicate using those rules? Or should we not acknowledge and discuss the diversity available in expressing thoughts and the subtleties inherent in making those choices? If someone asked me if I already ate lunch. The expected answer would be some variation of “I ate.” We tend to use simple tenses for simple questions. However, if the reply comes back “I have eaten.” Despite meaning the same thing, by changing the tense/mood of the verb, I’ve signalled something semantically — the unusualness of the response calls attention to itself, even if it conveys the same information. This is why we recognise connotative and denotative meanings of things — the semantic implications of a particular phrasing can have implications beyond their literal meanings and their functional equivalency. So, {qar’a’} and {qarbe’’a’} are functionally equivalent, and {qar’a’} is the expected form; however, I argue that {qarbe’’a’} is still valid and can be used as a contextual signal for the listener to derive some meaning not usually indicated by the expected usage. Finally, Okrand using the negative in the explanation for the idiomatic use of {qar’a’} is irrelevant since “isn’t that so” is also an idiomatic expression. Just because English uses the negative doesn’t mean Klingon does. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2019, at 15:44, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/7/2019 3:20 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
For a moment f*** tkd and Ca'Non.. f*** the known meaning of {qar'a'} too..
What the jay' does {qarbe''a'} mean ?
Does it mean "isn't that accurate?" or does it mean "is that incorrect?" ? Or does it mean both ? Or can it mean both ? The two mean the same thing.
Now that you know what qarbe''a' means, kindly go back to using qar'a' as described in TKD when uttering tag questions.
(By the way, one of the translations given in TKD for qar'a' is isn't that so? Notice the negative in the English translation. Now everyone can relax.) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/7/2019 4:39 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
A point I tried to make in my previous reply was that a use of the irregular {qarbe’’a’} is unusual, and would draw attention to it’s use over the more normal {qar’a’}. You see this tactic used frequently as a signalling device for specific intentionallities in academic writing, precisely because it calls attention to itself.
And that's fine.
I maintain that it is perfectly grammatical, and parseable, and — in the right context — desirable (depending on the intention of the speaker). If we follow your logic of “Okrand never used it that way” too far, we can easily arrive at an extreme of only using sentences that Okrand used… but, why bother having grammatical rules if we don’t allow ourselves room to communicate using those rules? Or should we not acknowledge and discuss the diversity available in expressing thoughts and the subtleties inherent in making those choices?
You have incorrectly applied my logic. I do not say "if Okrand didn't say it, we can't say it." I say "Okrand gave us a special, not-reproducible-by-other-rules feature of the language, so when using that feature as that feature, use it the way he gave us." There is no slippery slope here. I have no problem with analyzing the word *qarbe''a'.* It means something, and we can discuss its meaning. What I do have a problem with is treating *qarbe''a'* like an alternative of *qar'a',* which we have no evidence of. I know how mayqel posts: he tries to probe the limits of the language. He's used to asking negative tag questions in his native and learned languages, and he's trying to do the same in Klingon. And so far as we know, the tag question formula we're given does not include negatives. Maybe it does and we just haven't been told yet. But the variable placement of *qar'a'* in a sentence shows that it is not simply the sentence *qar'a'* in a grammatically normal position.
If someone asked me if I already ate lunch. The expected answer would be some variation of “I ate.” We tend to use simple tenses for simple questions. However, if the reply comes back “I have eaten.” Despite meaning the same thing, by changing the tense/mood of the verb, I’ve signalled something semantically — the unusualness of the response calls attention to itself, even if it conveys the same information. This is why we recognise connotative and denotative meanings of things — the semantic implications of a particular phrasing can have implications beyond their literal meanings and their functional equivalency.
So, {qar’a’} and {qarbe’’a’} are functionally equivalent, and {qar’a’} is the expected form;
No. *qar'a'* is a special case that's given to us; *qarbe'* has not been given to us. You can say *De' Sov qar'a' HoD*/The captain knows the information, right?/ and this is impossible to construct with *qarbe''a'.* The two words are not functionally equivalent.
Finally, Okrand using the negative in the explanation for the idiomatic use of {qar’a’} is irrelevant since “isn’t that so” is also an idiomatic expression. Just because English uses the negative doesn’t mean Klingon does.
That's why I brought it up: people were getting hung up on the negative tag question in English, so I showed how even Okrand equated /isn't it right/ with *qar'a'* and not *qarbe''a'.* How English translates it is irrelevant. That was the point. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2019, at 17:08, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: No. qar'a' is a special case that's given to us; qarbe' has not been given to us. You can say De' Sov qar'a' HoD The captain knows the information, right? and this is impossible to construct with qarbe''a'. The two words are not functionally equivalent.
I’ve never seen {qar’a’} occur mid-sentence like that (not that it isn’t possible, I’ve just not encountered it*). All the usages I’ve seen follow more like {De’ Sov HoD, qar’a’}; and in this form they could be functionally equivalent since they follow more standard grammatical rules — unless there’s also some prohibition against referencing a sentence as the subject of another sentence? *I couldn’t find this in my paper copy of TKD, because it’s in the Addendum — which my digital copy has but I’ve not reviewed in depth (mea culpa, I know). —jevreH
On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 00:55, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 7, 2019, at 17:08, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
No. *qar'a'* is a special case that's given to us; *qarbe'* has not been given to us. You can say *De' Sov qar'a' HoD** The captain knows the information, right?* and this is impossible to construct with *qarbe''a'.* The two words are not functionally equivalent.
I’ve never seen {qar’a’} occur mid-sentence like that (not that it isn’t possible, I’ve just not encountered it*). All the usages I’ve seen follow more like {De’ Sov HoD, qar’a’}; and in this form they could be functionally equivalent since they follow more standard grammatical rules — unless there’s also some prohibition against referencing a sentence as the subject of another sentence?
*I couldn’t find this in my paper copy of TKD, because it’s in the Addendum — which my digital copy has but I’ve not reviewed in depth (mea culpa, I know).
{De' Sov qar'a' HoD} and {De' Sov HoD qar'a'} are indeed in the TKD Addendum in section 6.4. -- De'vID
The sentence I used is the very sentence in TKD addendum that appears in both forms. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: Jeffrey Clark Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 6:55 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Can we say {qarbe''a'} ? Sent from my iPhone On May 7, 2019, at 17:08, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: No. qar'a' is a special case that's given to us; qarbe' has not been given to us. You can say De' Sov qar'a' HoD The captain knows the information, right? and this is impossible to construct with qarbe''a'. The two words are not functionally equivalent. I’ve never seen {qar’a’} occur mid-sentence like that (not that it isn’t possible, I’ve just not encountered it*). All the usages I’ve seen follow more like {De’ Sov HoD, qar’a’}; and in this form they could be functionally equivalent since they follow more standard grammatical rules — unless there’s also some prohibition against referencing a sentence as the subject of another sentence? *I couldn’t find this in my paper copy of TKD, because it’s in the Addendum — which my digital copy has but I’ve not reviewed in depth (mea culpa, I know). —jevreH
The sentence I used is the very sentence in TKD addendum that appears in both forms. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: Jeffrey Clark Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 6:55 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Can we say {qarbe''a'} ? Sent from my iPhone On May 7, 2019, at 17:08, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: No. qar'a' is a special case that's given to us; qarbe' has not been given to us. You can say De' Sov qar'a' HoD The captain knows the information, right? and this is impossible to construct with qarbe''a'. The two words are not functionally equivalent. I’ve never seen {qar’a’} occur mid-sentence like that (not that it isn’t possible, I’ve just not encountered it*). All the usages I’ve seen follow more like {De’ Sov HoD, qar’a’}; and in this form they could be functionally equivalent since they follow more standard grammatical rules — unless there’s also some prohibition against referencing a sentence as the subject of another sentence? *I couldn’t find this in my paper copy of TKD, because it’s in the Addendum — which my digital copy has but I’ve not reviewed in depth (mea culpa, I know). —jevreH
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:41 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Read:
wagh vIghro'mey tIQ, qar'a' ?
ancient cats are expensive, is it accurate ?
This is correct.
Now, read this too:
wagh vIghro'mey tIQ, qarbe''a' ?
ancient cats are expensive, isn't it accurate ?
Is the above correct ? And if yes, is there any difference in meaning compared to the first sentence ? Because I can't understand any difference in meaning, if any..
We do have an example of *-be''a'* sentences. *cheqotlhchugh maHaghbe''a'? cheDuQchugh mareghbe''a'? cheQIHchugh manoDbe''a'?* *Tickle us, do we not laugh? Prick us, do we not bleed? Wrong us, shall we not seek revenge?* In this case, it does seem to be used to indicate questions intended to get a "no" or "that is not the case" answer. (E.g.: "No, it is not the case that you don't laugh when tickled.") It's also a rhetorical flourish, intended to make the speaker think "It is the case that you laugh when tickled", so perhaps this grammar can't be taken 100% literally.
SuStel:
I know how mayqel posts: he tries to probe the limits of the language.
You're right ! I believe firmly, that in order to learn something, we have to explore everything. And when I say everything, I mean *everything*. Understanding the limits, and what *not* to do, is exactly as important, as understanding what we *need* to do. The difference between the amateur and the expert, is that the latter knows the details. The goal isn't to learn *something*; the goal is to learn *everything* leaving no stone unturned. Perhaps this seems overly "thorough", but hey, don't blame me. I'm only a Capricorn. An overly persistent goat.. SuStel:
He's used to asking negative tag questions in his native and learned languages, and he's trying to do the same in Klingon.
True again.. Often, during the day, I think in Klingon in order to practice. Yesterday, while I was thinking in Greek, and then trying to translate to Klingon, a greek negative tag question came to mind. And that lead to this thread. SuStel:
And so far as we know, the tag question formula we're given does not include negatives.
Correct. And to avoid any misunderstandings, I'm not saying we *should* use {qarbe''a'} as an alternative to {qar'a'}. I just *needed* to know what's its difference, compared to the {qar'a'}. SuStel, 'amerI'qa' jupwI', reH choyajchu', 'ej Dojbej wanI'vam ! SuStel, my american friend, you always understand me perfectly, and this impresses me ! ~ m. qunen'oS the goal is borg perfection
participants (6)
-
De'vID -
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin