Or, "all is -lu' good for..". Suppose I want to write a long passage with the subject of lets say training, and whether someone who has a demanding day job, can actually do serious training. Naturally, during this passage, I will need to say a lot "someone who has a demanding job.. someone who works many hours a day.. someone who is often tired.. someone who is able or unable to simultaneously train, and so on..". And naturally my choice would be, since I'm writing about someone unspecified, to use -lu'. But here starts the problem.. One can't use simultaneously -lu' and -laH. On the other hand, in a long passage where in order to refer to "someone" the -lu' is used, it is not advised to be constantly switching from -lu' to vay', when the need to say "someone is/isn't able to do whatever". So, in a long passage, the only way to avoid this problem is either using only vay' from the start, or just saying wa' nuv, to refer to "a person". Meaning, that unfortunately all is -lu' really good for, is to produce the equivalent of passive voice, in a language which doesn't have a passive voice, to start with.. ~ changan qIj
On 3/18/2019 1:10 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Or, "all is -lu' good for..".
Suppose I want to write a long passage with the subject of lets say training, and whether someone who has a demanding day job, can actually do serious training.
Naturally, during this passage, I will need to say a lot "someone who has a demanding job.. someone who works many hours a day.. someone who is often tired.. someone who is able or unable to simultaneously train, and so on..".
And naturally my choice would be, since I'm writing about someone unspecified, to use -lu'.
But here starts the problem.. One can't use simultaneously -lu' and -laH.
On the other hand, in a long passage where in order to refer to "someone" the -lu' is used, it is not advised to be constantly switching from -lu' to vay', when the need to say "someone is/isn't able to do whatever".
So, in a long passage, the only way to avoid this problem is either using only vay' from the start, or just saying wa' nuv, to refer to "a person".
Meaning, that unfortunately all is -lu' really good for, is to produce the equivalent of passive voice, in a language which doesn't have a passive voice, to start with..
You'd have to show me your attempt before I thought this was a problem. In a long passage I would expect the writer to start using specific nouns: *vumqu'wI'*/hard worker,/ *Hoch jaj qaStaHvIS rep law' vumbogh ghot*/person who works for many hours a day,/ *Doy'wI'*/tired one,/ *qeqlaHbe'wI'*/one who cannot train./ I use *-lu'* all the time, and not regularly to translate English passive voice. Show me a text you want to translate that you think runs into an irreconcilable *-lu'/laH* clash. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Show me a text you want to translate that you think runs into an irreconcilable *-lu'/laH* clash.
I'm afraid you misunderstood me. The problem (or at least my problem..), isn't that I come across the need to say "someone who is unable", and can't find the way to say it, without breaking the -lu'/-laH rule. The problem is, that if I start the passage writing e.g. {vumlu'taHvIS, 'ej Doy'qu'lu'taHvIS, qeqnISlu'chugh..}, and suddenly I need to say "but he is unable to train", I would then need to switch off the -lu', to some other solution. Perhaps I would say {qeqlaHbe'}, {qeqlaHbe' vay'}, {qeqlaHbe' nuv}, {qeqlaHbe' vumqu'wI'}, etc. But doing so, I would have to switch from talking about someone "unspecified", to someone "specified". Now, don't ask me what the actual difference is, between the "someone" described by the -lu', and the "someone" described by the vay'. In greek we don't have something similar, so I can't *feel* the difference between the two. But I think sometime in the past, it had been said in a discussion on the -lu', that once someone starts using in a long passage the -lu', then it would be preferable if he didn't use -lu' and -vay' (or some other solution) interchangeably. ~ changan qIj
On 3/18/2019 2:09 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
Show me a text you want to translate that you think runs into an irreconcilable *-lu'/laH* clash.
I'm afraid you misunderstood me.
The problem (or at least my problem..), isn't that I come across the need to say "someone who is unable", and can't find the way to say it, without breaking the -lu'/-laH rule.
The problem is, that if I start the passage writing e.g. {vumlu'taHvIS, 'ej Doy'qu'lu'taHvIS, qeqnISlu'chugh..}, and suddenly I need to say "but he is unable to train", I would then need to switch off the -lu', to some other solution.
Perhaps I would say {qeqlaHbe'}, {qeqlaHbe' vay'}, {qeqlaHbe' nuv}, {qeqlaHbe' vumqu'wI'}, etc.
But doing so, I would have to switch from talking about someone "unspecified", to someone "specified".
Now, don't ask me what the actual difference is, between the "someone" described by the -lu', and the "someone" described by the vay'. In greek we don't have something similar, so I can't *feel* the difference between the two.
But I think sometime in the past, it had been said in a discussion on the -lu', that once someone starts using in a long passage the -lu', then it would be preferable if he didn't use -lu' and -vay' (or some other solution) interchangeably.
I'd just use *vay'* with the *-laH *and forget about it. Actually I'd probably use *vay'* for the whole thing, provided I didn't need to repeat it. *vumtaHvIS vay' 'ej Doy'qu'taHvIS, qeqnISchugh 'ach qaqlaHbe'chugh...* Again, I'd need to see this in its larger context. You'll generally have to reword something that will end up with a *-laH* and *-lu'* together anyway. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
It might be good to rethink the entire project. A long string of {-lu’} or {vay’} is odd because on one hand, you want the subject to be unspecified, but on the other hand, you want to be talking about the same unspecified entity repeatedly. If it were truly unspecified, then there’s no guarantee that the second statement is about the same entity as the first one. It just doesn’t come across as direct, blunt speech. I’m suspecting it would test a listener’s patience. Just sayin’. There might be a better approach to the entire effort. I’d have to understand it better to give more detailed advice (if it were desired). charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 18, 2019, at 2:21 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/18/2019 2:09 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
Show me a text you want to translate that you think runs into an irreconcilable -lu'/laH clash.
I'm afraid you misunderstood me.
The problem (or at least my problem..), isn't that I come across the need to say "someone who is unable", and can't find the way to say it, without breaking the -lu'/-laH rule.
The problem is, that if I start the passage writing e.g. {vumlu'taHvIS, 'ej Doy'qu'lu'taHvIS, qeqnISlu'chugh..}, and suddenly I need to say "but he is unable to train", I would then need to switch off the -lu', to some other solution.
Perhaps I would say {qeqlaHbe'}, {qeqlaHbe' vay'}, {qeqlaHbe' nuv}, {qeqlaHbe' vumqu'wI'}, etc.
But doing so, I would have to switch from talking about someone "unspecified", to someone "specified".
Now, don't ask me what the actual difference is, between the "someone" described by the -lu', and the "someone" described by the vay'. In greek we don't have something similar, so I can't *feel* the difference between the two.
But I think sometime in the past, it had been said in a discussion on the -lu', that once someone starts using in a long passage the -lu', then it would be preferable if he didn't use -lu' and -vay' (or some other solution) interchangeably. I'd just use vay' with the -laH and forget about it.
Actually I'd probably use vay' for the whole thing, provided I didn't need to repeat it. vumtaHvIS vay' 'ej Doy'qu'taHvIS, qeqnISchugh 'ach qaqlaHbe'chugh...
Again, I'd need to see this in its larger context. You'll generally have to reword something that will end up with a -laH and -lu' together anyway.
-- 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
charghwI:
There might be a better approach to the entire effort.
I wish there was, but what would that be ? Suppose you wanted to write, a long passage with regards to the process of learning a foreign language. Starting from how often one should study, how one should study, the things one should avoid, etc.. How would you approach it, without using the -lu' ? The only choices I can think of, are saying {vay'} and/or {ghojwI'}, and using them interchangeably. But I would avoid the - lu', if not for any other reason, at least in order to avoid hitting the simultaneous -laH/lu' obstacle. Would you approach this differently ? ~ changan qIj
On 3/18/2019 3:36 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
charghwI:
There might be a better approach to the entire effort.
I wish there was, but what would that be ?
Suppose you wanted to write, a long passage with regards to the process of learning a foreign language. Starting from how often one should study, how one should study, the things one should avoid, etc..
How would you approach it, without using the -lu' ?
The only choices I can think of, are saying {vay'} and/or {ghojwI'}, and using them interchangeably. But I would avoid the - lu', if not for any other reason, at least in order to avoid hitting the simultaneous -laH/lu' obstacle.
Would you approach this differently ?
I'd probably use imperatives. If it's a book of instruction, instead of saying *naDev wot lo'nISlu'*/one needs to use a verb here,/ just say *naDev wot yIlo'*/use a verb here!/ If, on the other hand, you're writing a scholarly paper on how people go about learning languages, then I'd pepper my manuscript with *ghojwI'*/student/, *jatlhwI'*/speaker/, or whoever it is who is learning. *naDev wot lo' jatlhwI'*/the speaker uses a verb here./ Then your *-laH* problem doesn't even exist. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Great example. Looking more closely at it, I could see it interpreted two different ways, and wonder which is intended. The most common interpretation is that the one who seeks to win a war should not do so if doing so destroys his own empire. The other interpretation is that the destruction of any empire is not justified by winning a war. Similarly, the second half either means that one should end a war to save one’s own empire or that one should stop any war before it destroys any empire. Regardless of whose team you are on, don’t cook your golden goose. Don’t destroy the organization that makes glorious war possible. A surviving empire can always build itself back up and offer another war later, right? Then you get to defeat them AGAIN, so long as you don’t destroy them. Human common sense suggests the first interpretation should win because we seek to dominate all enemies and end all wars, but considering how Klingons value a strong enemy, it could well be that the proverb is stressing that all empires must survive, perhaps so that they may continue to wage war. A Klingon would never want to destroy all enemies. If the second interpretation holds, that it is a general law that even your enemy’s empire must be saved, then your example shows {-lu’} as completely unspecified, and not merely unstated. In other words, it is not that there are some guys and I’m not going to tell you who they are, but those guys X and those same guys Y. I’m instead saying that EVERYBODY X and EVERYBODY Y. I’m talking about the generic “one” that proverbs generally refer to. If that’s the case, then going back to the original question, I’d be as specific as the topic implies and talk about students instead of talking about a generic “one” when I really only intend to be talking about students. You get the added bonus of losing any conflict over speaking of ability. I think you should use {ghojwI’} a couple times and then continue with the invisible “he/she” without using {-lu’} at all. You don’t need it as much as you seem to think you do. I honestly think it’s most common use is for the global, generic “one” and not so much for the limited context, unstated subject. Any normal pronoun can do what you are trying to do with the indefinite subject. It’s just an opinion. I’m not an authority. It stands on its own, or it falls in the marketplace of discussion. charghwI’ Sent from my iPad
On Mar 18, 2019, at 3:47 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/18/2019 3:36 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: charghwI:
There might be a better approach to the entire effort.
I wish there was, but what would that be ?
Suppose you wanted to write, a long passage with regards to the process of learning a foreign language. Starting from how often one should study, how one should study, the things one should avoid, etc..
How would you approach it, without using the -lu' ?
The only choices I can think of, are saying {vay'} and/or {ghojwI'}, and using them interchangeably. But I would avoid the - lu', if not for any other reason, at least in order to avoid hitting the simultaneous -laH/lu' obstacle.
Would you approach this differently ? I'd probably use imperatives. If it's a book of instruction, instead of saying naDev wot lo'nISlu' one needs to use a verb here, just say naDev wot yIlo' use a verb here!
If, on the other hand, you're writing a scholarly paper on how people go about learning languages, then I'd pepper my manuscript with ghojwI' student, jatlhwI' speaker, or whoever it is who is learning. naDev wot lo' jatlhwI' the speaker uses a verb here. Then your -laH problem doesn't even exist.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:37, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Suppose you wanted to write, a long passage with regards to the process of learning a foreign language. Starting from how often one should study, how one should study, the things one should avoid, etc..
How would you approach it, without using the -lu' ?
The only choices I can think of, are saying {vay'} and/or {ghojwI'}, and using them interchangeably. But I would avoid the - lu', if not for any other reason, at least in order to avoid hitting the simultaneous -laH/lu' obstacle.
Would you approach this differently ?
Why wouldn't you just use {vay'}, and then subsequently use {ghaH} to refer back to that person? The first mention of your hypothetical person might be indefinite, but subsequent mentions aren't indefinite any more: they are about the same someone you've already mentioned. -- De'vID
De'vID:
Why wouldn't you just use {vay'}, and then subsequently use {ghaH} to refer back to that person?
I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I don't have a problem with using vay' and then ghaH, as you suggested. It is what I would naturally do, in order to avoid hitting the -lu'/-laH problem. The point of this thread, was to share my disappointment; on one hand we have a suffix, which we could use in order to refer to someone indefinite, but on the other hand, the -lu'/-laH rule, undermines our ability to use -lu' to its fullest, thus limiting its use to expressing passive voice. Anyway, there are plenty of choices available, so all is good. ~ changan qIj
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:18, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Why wouldn't you just use {vay'}, and then subsequently use {ghaH} to refer back to that person?
I'm afraid you misunderstood me.
I don't have a problem with using vay' and then ghaH, as you suggested. It is what I would naturally do, in order to avoid hitting the -lu'/-laH problem.
There's your problem, though. You'd only do this to "avoid hitting" the {-lu'}/{-laH} "problem". But why wouldn't you be doing this to begin with, *regardless* of whether {-lu'}/{-laH} were the same suffix type or not? Imagine if Klingon didn't lump {-lu'} and {-laH} into the same suffix class and you could use them together. What would change?
The point of this thread, was to share my disappointment; on one hand we have a suffix, which we could use in order to refer to someone indefinite, but on the other hand, the -lu'/-laH rule, undermines our ability to use -lu' to its fullest, thus limiting its use to expressing passive voice.
I don't think it does, though. You've claimed repeatedly this is a problem, but you've not really demonstrated this by writing a passage in Klingon which runs into this problem. So let's pretend that {-lu'laH} is permissible. What is the passage you would've written? -- De'vID
De'vID:
But why wouldn't you be doing this to begin with, *regardless* of whether {-lu'}/{-laH} were the same suffix type or not? So let's pretend that {-lu'laH} is permissible. What is the passage you would've written?
If I was to write a long passage with regards to lets say, enviromental pollution, and whether someone as an individual could contribute to protecting the enviroment, my first choice would be to use -lu', because I would need to talk about someone unspecified. Of course, vay' could word as well; but my first choice would be -lu', provided of course I wouldn't need to switch to vay', as soon as I would need to write "someone is able/unable". ~ changan qij
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:48, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
But why wouldn't you be doing this to begin with, *regardless* of whether {-lu'}/{-laH} were the same suffix type or not? So let's pretend that {-lu'laH} is permissible. What is the passage you would've written?
If I was to write a long passage with regards to lets say, enviromental pollution, and whether someone as an individual could contribute to protecting the enviroment, my first choice would be to use -lu', because I would need to talk about someone unspecified.
Of course, vay' could word as well; but my first choice would be -lu', provided of course I wouldn't need to switch to vay', as soon as I would need to write "someone is able/unable".
Write the passage. I want to see how often you actually produce something that requires {-lu'laH}. -- De'vID
It isn't something which would happen often. But when it *would* actually happen, it wouldn't be nice (stylistically) to shift from -lu' to vay'. ~ changan qIj
On 3/18/2019 3:06 PM, Will Martin wrote:
It might be good to rethink the entire project. A long string of {-lu’} or {vay’} is odd because on one hand, you want the subject to be unspecified, but on the other hand, you want to be talking about the same unspecified entity repeatedly. If it were truly unspecified, then there’s no guarantee that the second statement is about the same entity as the first one.
Klingon seems to be willing to work with a string of *-lu'* verbs, as exhibited in this proverb: *noq QapmeH wo' Qaw'lu'chugh yay chavbe'lu' 'ej wo' choqmeH may' DoHlu'chugh lujbe'lu'*/Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a battle to save an empire is no defeat. /(TKW)
It just doesn’t come across as direct, blunt speech. I’m suspecting it would test a listener’s patience.
Klingon should be direct, but I don't think it has to be blunt. To extend the metaphor, they might like sharp, cutting remarks. In any case, I'm not sure why an indefinite subject would necessarily sound indirect to a Klingon's ear. I also don't think it would test a listener's patience. As long as the listener knows you're not talking about a specific subject, they can just hear *-lu'* and think "subject not important here." Constant passive voice or stilted, impersonal /one/ in English is tiresome, but that's because we have more common and active ways to say these things. Klingon indefinite subject is not passive. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 3/18/2019 3:43 PM, SuStel wrote:
*noq QapmeH wo' Qaw'lu'chugh yay chavbe'lu' 'ej wo' choqmeH may' DoHlu'chugh lujbe'lu'*/Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a battle to save an empire is no defeat. /(TKW)
Typo: *noH* should be the first word, of course. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin