Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us"
But "we", by its nature, refers to more than one entity. vIghro' is singular. -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 1/29/18, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us" To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Date: Monday, January 29, 2018, 4:58 AM DloraH:> I read [Hoch maH] as " all the us's", "all the we's", as in multiple > groups. It is not speaking of the entirety of a single group I'm afraid I disagree. If we say, for example, {Hoch vIghro'mey DIlegh}, we will understand "we see all the cats". All the cats our words concern. Whether there is just a single group or more, that's unspecified. Though I doubt, someone's mind will go on to think that there may be multiple groups. So, I don't think someone will understand, that there are multiple groups of cats, and the {Hoch vIghro'mey} is used to describe the entirety of these groups, taken together as a whole. ~ nI'ghma On Jan 29, 2018 03:20, "seruq" <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote: I read [Hoch maH] as " all the us's", "all the we's", as in multiple groups. It is not speaking of the entirety of a single group. As for [maH Hoch], similar to the plural suffix, unless you need to remove ambiguity, then no need to use it. Just use maH. But I can see the possibility of it's use. A: mab wIlaj maH B: chaq bolaj tlhIH 'op neH A: maghwI' vIHoH, DaH wIlaj maH Hoch - DloraH ______________________________ _________________ 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
DloraH:
But "we", by its nature, refers to more than one entity. vIghro' is singular.
I'm afraid I can't understand the point you are trying to make. If we say {Hoch vIghro'} then we mean "each cat"". If we say {Hoch vIghro'mey} then we mean "all cats". By the same rationale {Hoch maH} must mean "all we". vIghro'mey = many cats maH = us (a number of people being considered together). (The {-mey} is included in the concept of {maH}). I'm not arguing here, in order to prove that {maH Hoch} is indeed correct. That's something for the grammarians to decide. (And as soon as they decide I would appreciate it, if they told me too). But I just can't understand, how the {Hoch maH} could be considered to mean ""all the us's", "all the we's", as in multiple groups"". ~ nI'ghma
On 1/30/2018 10:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
That's something for the grammarians to decide. (And as soon as they decide I would appreciate it, if they told me too).
The list grammarians don't get to decide how Klingon works. They don't have any authority that you don't have. They are only people who have been recognized as having skill in Klingon, by virtue of holding special office in the KLI or having served as Beginners' Grammarian. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj, 'amerI'qa' jupwI' ! So, scratch this: That's something for the grammarians to decide And replace with: That's something for matlh to decide And now, we're all happy ! yes ? ~ nI'ghma On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:10 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/30/2018 10:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
That's something for the grammarians to decide. (And as soon as they decide I would appreciate it, if they told me too).
The list grammarians don't get to decide how Klingon works. They don't have any authority that you don't have. They are only people who have been recognized as having skill in Klingon, by virtue of holding special office in the KLI or having served as Beginners' Grammarian.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DloraH:
But "we", by its nature, refers to more than one entity. vIghro' is singular.
I'm afraid I can't understand the point you are trying to make.
If we say {Hoch vIghro'} then we mean "each cat"". If we say {Hoch vIghro'mey} then we mean "all cats". By the same rationale {Hoch maH} must mean "all we".
vIghro'mey = many cats maH = us (a number of people being considered together). (The {-mey} is included in the concept of {maH}).
Technically {maH} would include the concept of {-pu'}! I do see where you're coming from here. If {vIghro'mey} refers to a group of cats, and {Hoch vIghro'mey} means "all cats, all the cats", then if {maH} refers to a group of people, then why wouldn't {Hoch maH} be used to mean "all of us, all the people in the group of us"? (Or at least, why aren't the other Klingonists like myself using it that way, since Maltz hasn't weighed in one way or another.) I think the distinction here is between a plural noun and a noun that collectively refers to a group. For instance, {Hoch ghom} would mean "each group", not "all of the members of the group", and {Hoch ghommey} would mean "all groups". So we're left with the question: is {maH} similar to {vIghro'mey} or to {ghom}? It's grammatically plural, like {vIghro'mey}, but refers to its constituents as a whole and not as individuals, like {ghom}. Some of the posters here, like myself, are treating it more like {ghom}. At least for me, I'm doing this because it feels like the "treats the group as a whole" element is more important than the "grammatically plural" element. So if {maH} does work like {ghom}, then {Hoch maH} would refer to "each 'group of us'", and it's somewhat difficult to understand quite what that would mean. (I'm thinking of the TNG episode where they encountered hundreds of Enterprises from parallel universes. Someone on the bridge crew might refer to the totality of the various parallel bridge crews as {Hoch maH}. Many weird constructions involving pronouns would only really make sense in cases of multiple or confused identities. They'd probably be ungrammatical, but the weirdness of the construction would reflect the weirdness of the situation. {'ach DoS vIchIlqa'.}) We know that {Hoch} following a noun means something like "all of the given noun, the entirety of the noun", and following a group noun, it would seem to mean "all the members of that group" rather than "all the groups". So that's why I initially suggested {maH Hoch}. Of course, this is all speculation. (I'd like to think it's reasonably-informed speculation.) It's possible, for instance, that you can't use pronouns in a {Hoch} construction at all, and you'd need to rephrase it as something like {ghommaj Hoch} "the entirety of our group". However, we don't know one way or another, and my general inclination in such ambiguous circumstances is to not assume something is forbidden.
nIqolay Q:
I do see where you're coming from here. If {vIghro'mey} refers to a group of cats, and {Hoch vIghro'mey} means "all cats, all the cats", then if {maH} refers to a group of people, then why wouldn't {Hoch maH} be used to mean "all of us, all the people in the group of us"?
Yes, you're right. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Anyway, although I can understand (or think I can) the reasons presented so far against the use of {maH Hoch}, unfortunately I cannot *feel* them. If that makes sense. Perhaps, it's the way I'm influenced by Greek on this matter, still, I realize that since there is such controversy on this matter it is best if I refrain from using it. So, I'll just settle for a humble.. {vIghro'mey DImuSHa'. naDev muS pagh'e'} Perhaps, using the time-honored-qeylIS-approved method of writing in a retarded-multiple-sentence-way, even if it is in order to say the simplest things, is indeed the way to go.. ~ nI'ghma On Jan 30, 2018 5:54 PM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DloraH:
But "we", by its nature, refers to more than one entity. vIghro' is singular.
I'm afraid I can't understand the point you are trying to make.
If we say {Hoch vIghro'} then we mean "each cat"". If we say {Hoch vIghro'mey} then we mean "all cats". By the same rationale {Hoch maH} must mean "all we".
vIghro'mey = many cats maH = us (a number of people being considered together). (The {-mey} is included in the concept of {maH}).
Technically {maH} would include the concept of {-pu'}!
I do see where you're coming from here. If {vIghro'mey} refers to a group of cats, and {Hoch vIghro'mey} means "all cats, all the cats", then if {maH} refers to a group of people, then why wouldn't {Hoch maH} be used to mean "all of us, all the people in the group of us"? (Or at least, why aren't the other Klingonists like myself using it that way, since Maltz hasn't weighed in one way or another.)
I think the distinction here is between a plural noun and a noun that collectively refers to a group. For instance, {Hoch ghom} would mean "each group", not "all of the members of the group", and {Hoch ghommey} would mean "all groups". So we're left with the question: is {maH} similar to {vIghro'mey} or to {ghom}? It's grammatically plural, like {vIghro'mey}, but refers to its constituents as a whole and not as individuals, like {ghom}. Some of the posters here, like myself, are treating it more like {ghom}. At least for me, I'm doing this because it feels like the "treats the group as a whole" element is more important than the "grammatically plural" element.
So if {maH} does work like {ghom}, then {Hoch maH} would refer to "each 'group of us'", and it's somewhat difficult to understand quite what that would mean. (I'm thinking of the TNG episode where they encountered hundreds of Enterprises from parallel universes. Someone on the bridge crew might refer to the totality of the various parallel bridge crews as {Hoch maH}. Many weird constructions involving pronouns would only really make sense in cases of multiple or confused identities. They'd probably be ungrammatical, but the weirdness of the construction would reflect the weirdness of the situation. {'ach DoS vIchIlqa'.}) We know that {Hoch} following a noun means something like "all of the given noun, the entirety of the noun", and following a group noun, it would seem to mean "all the members of that group" rather than "all the groups". So that's why I initially suggested {maH Hoch}. Of course, this is all speculation. (I'd like to think it's reasonably-informed speculation.) It's possible, for instance, that you can't use pronouns in a {Hoch} construction at all, and you'd need to rephrase it as something like {ghommaj Hoch} "the entirety of our group". However, we don't know one way or another, and my general inclination in such ambiguous circumstances is to not assume something is forbidden.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/2/2018 1:14 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Perhaps, using the time-honored-qeylIS-approved method of writing in a retarded-multiple-sentence-way, even if it is in order to say the simplest things, is indeed the way to go..
Oh please. What's simple in one language is not necessarily simple in another. The very fact that we have multiple forms of "sentence as object" shows that Klingon is perfectly comfortable with multiple sentences. Canon like *'uSDaj chop; chev* for /chew his arm off!/ shows you don't even need a special grammatical structure to do it. Every simile does this. COMBINING MULTIPLE SENTENCES IS *HOW* KLINGON DOES SIMPLE. The problem you're having isn't that what you want should be simple and it's not; it's that one language has a tool the other doesn't and you miss it. How would you say *SuQomtaH* in Standard American English (that's the newscaster variety)? (Hint: SAE has no /y'all /or /youz/.) Can you say it as simply as the Klingon? In Klingon, it's three syllables. In the simplest and most precise SAE translation, not losing any meaning or adding any ambiguity, I count twelve syllables. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
How would you say *SuQomtaH* in Standard American English (that's the newscaster variety)? (Hint: SAE has no *y'all *or *youz*.) Can you say it as simply as the Klingon?
No, of course not. The ability of klingon to provide us with a way to express a longer english sentence with fewer words, is something which I always liked in this language. An ability which is often able to impress. But the positve impression created by that ability fades, when we come across the need to express something simple, only to realize that because there are no tools to do so, we need to pause whatever it was we were writing, only to start describing in multiple sentences something which should be expressed in just a few words. One of course could disagree as to what is simple and what is complex. In my opinion, phrases as "we all", or "five minutes before dawn" are simple things to say; "femoroacetabular impingement" on the other hand isn't. I realize, that it is impossible for an artificial language to be able to possess the full potential of a real language. But I believe, sometimes we just need to say "ok, it's an artificial language, so there are limits to what we can say and how", than trying to convince the other that everything is perfect and exactly the way it should be. Only qeylIS is perfect. Nothing else in this world is perfect. And if someone thinks that klingon is perfect, then don't compile wish lists for qep'a'mey and qepHommey, don't ask for anything more. Accept everything the way it is right now, because everything is perfect. So perfect, that not even God himself could do better. ~ nI'ghma On Feb 2, 2018 8:47 PM, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/2/2018 1:14 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Perhaps, using the time-honored-qeylIS-approved method of writing in a retarded-multiple-sentence-way, even if it is in order to say the simplest things, is indeed the way to go..
Oh please. What's simple in one language is not necessarily simple in another. The very fact that we have multiple forms of "sentence as object" shows that Klingon is perfectly comfortable with multiple sentences. Canon like *'uSDaj chop; chev* for *chew his arm off!* shows you don't even need a special grammatical structure to do it. Every simile does this.
COMBINING MULTIPLE SENTENCES IS *HOW* KLINGON DOES SIMPLE.
The problem you're having isn't that what you want should be simple and it's not; it's that one language has a tool the other doesn't and you miss it. How would you say *SuQomtaH* in Standard American English (that's the newscaster variety)? (Hint: SAE has no *y'all *or *youz*.) Can you say it as simply as the Klingon? In Klingon, it's three syllables. In the simplest and most precise SAE translation, not losing any meaning or adding any ambiguity, I count twelve syllables.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/2/2018 3:26 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
The ability of klingon to provide us with a way to express a longer english sentence with fewer words, is something which I always liked in this language. An ability which is often able to impress.
But the positve impression created by that ability fades, when we come across the need to express something simple, only to realize that because there are no tools to do so, we need to pause whatever it was we were writing, only to start describing in multiple sentences something which should be expressed in just a few words.
Except it goes in the opposite direction as well. You like it when Klingon says simply what English expresses only with complexity, but you dislike it when English (or Greek) says simply what Klingon expresses only with complexity. It's exactly the same thing. Klingon is not designed to be the most efficient language ever, despite the talking points that get thrown around here sometimes. It has its strengths and its weaknesses, just like any other language. That's what makes it /good./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:26 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The ability of klingon to provide us with a way to express a longer english sentence with fewer words, is something which I always liked in this language. An ability which is often able to impress.
But the positve impression created by that ability fades, when we come across the need to express something simple, only to realize that because there are no tools to do so, we need to pause whatever it was we were writing, only to start describing in multiple sentences something which should be expressed in just a few words.
It's true that Klingon is often more concise than English is, but there's no reason to expect that this would be universally true for all English utterances. The fact that Klingon is sometimes wordier than English and sometimes isn't isn't an inherent flaw in the design of the language. I'm pretty sure all natural languages have some things that they are able to express concisely and other things they can't. There is no inherent measure of how wordy a concept "should" be. For instance, English lacks the verb endings of something like Spanish, so English has to use more words to express subjects, tenses, or aspects than you might otherwise in Spanish. On the other hand, English is more comfortable with "noun-noun" type constructions, whereas Spanish usually requires a "de" in between the words: "orange juice" vs "zumo de naranja". (If I were familiar with more languages, or at least more familiar with linguistics, I might have better specific examples off the top of my head...) Also, "femoroacetabular impingement" only looks complex because if doctors use Germanic roots instead of Latinate roots they get their medical licenses revoked. {DonHa' 'uS Hom 'IvtIH Hom je} "hip bone and leg bone are misaligned", {'IvtIH Hom tey 'uS Hom} "leg bone scrapes the hip bone", and {'IvtIH Hom QemjIqmo' jIrHa' 'uS Hom} "leg bone mis-rotates because of the hip bone socket" all seem to sum up the basic idea.
SuStel:
Except it goes in the opposite direction as well. You like it when Klingon says simply what English expresses only with complexity, but you dislike it when English (or Greek) says simply what Klingon expresses only with complexity.
oh.. You're right ! Excellent point.. I hadn't thought of that ! SuStel:
It's exactly the same thing. Klingon is not designed to be the most efficient language ever, despite the talking points that get thrown around here sometimes. It has its strengths and its weaknesses, just like any other language. That's what makes it good.
It's not just good. It's awesome. It's outstanding. It's amazing ! I wouldn't trade klingon for any other artificial language. Not vulcan, not quenya, not dothraki, not valyrian, not anything else. And if I often complain to the point of possibly irritating people, is exactly because I love klingon and can't stop wishing for more tools to work with, and expand the ability to express myself through klingon. 'ej DaH, DujwIj vISo' 'ej logh HurghtaHghachDaq vIngab. maja'chuqta'mo' jIH latlh toQDujmey je, jIbel.. ~ nI'ghma On Feb 2, 2018 10:57 PM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:26 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The ability of klingon to provide us with a way to express a longer english sentence with fewer words, is something which I always liked in this language. An ability which is often able to impress.
But the positve impression created by that ability fades, when we come across the need to express something simple, only to realize that because there are no tools to do so, we need to pause whatever it was we were writing, only to start describing in multiple sentences something which should be expressed in just a few words.
It's true that Klingon is often more concise than English is, but there's no reason to expect that this would be universally true for all English utterances. The fact that Klingon is sometimes wordier than English and sometimes isn't isn't an inherent flaw in the design of the language. I'm pretty sure all natural languages have some things that they are able to express concisely and other things they can't. There is no inherent measure of how wordy a concept "should" be.
For instance, English lacks the verb endings of something like Spanish, so English has to use more words to express subjects, tenses, or aspects than you might otherwise in Spanish. On the other hand, English is more comfortable with "noun-noun" type constructions, whereas Spanish usually requires a "de" in between the words: "orange juice" vs "zumo de naranja". (If I were familiar with more languages, or at least more familiar with linguistics, I might have better specific examples off the top of my head...)
Also, "femoroacetabular impingement" only looks complex because if doctors use Germanic roots instead of Latinate roots they get their medical licenses revoked. {DonHa' 'uS Hom 'IvtIH Hom je} "hip bone and leg bone are misaligned", {'IvtIH Hom tey 'uS Hom} "leg bone scrapes the hip bone", and {'IvtIH Hom QemjIqmo' jIrHa' 'uS Hom} "leg bone mis-rotates because of the hip bone socket" all seem to sum up the basic idea.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jIH:
maja'chuqta'mo' jIH latlh toQDujmey je, jIbel
Atlhough while I was writing this sentence, I didn't have in mind the subject of this thread, just now I realized that if this sentence is indeed correct, then perhaps we could also say: {maja'chuqta'mo' jIH Hoch'e' je, jIbel} because we have discussed me and everyone, I am pleased Granted, the english sounds a little strange. But I can't find something wrong to the klingon sentence. ~ nI'ghma
participants (4)
-
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
seruq -
SuStel