placement of Hoch in a {-bogh} phrase
Hoch tIQbogh vIghro' each cat which is ancient tIQbogh Hoch vIghro' each cat which is ancient Are the above two options equally correct ? Should I prefer one over the other ? ~ khgkkhk
There might be some slight difference in meaning or scope, but I feel like in most cases they'd be more or less identical. My preference is for {tIQbogh Hoch vIghro'}, since it doesn't break up the N-N construction, but that's just a preference. On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:34 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoch tIQbogh vIghro'
each cat which is ancient
tIQbogh Hoch vIghro'
each cat which is ancient
Are the above two options equally correct ? Should I prefer one over the other ?
~ khgkkhk
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
The closest example I could find was the classic line from the poem {lu qeng} (“The Fall of Kang”) by G’trok: Hoch jaghpu'Daj HoHbogh SuvwI' yIvup "Pity the warrior who slays all his foes." (KGT) … but here {Hoch} modifies the object of the action verb {HoH} “kill”, not the subject of a quality like {tIQ} “be ancient”. Why not just say {Hoch vIghro’ tIQ} “each ancient cat”? A relative clause with {-bogh} seems overly elaborate. Perhaps if you would provide the full thought you’re trying to translate. -- Voragh From: nIqolay Q There might be some slight difference in meaning or scope, but I feel like in most cases they'd be more or less identical. My preference is for {tIQbogh Hoch vIghro'}, since it doesn't break up the N-N construction, but that's just a preference. On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:34 AM mayqel qunen'oS wrote: Hoch tIQbogh vIghro' each cat which is ancient tIQbogh Hoch vIghro' each cat which is ancient Are the above two options equally correct ? Should I prefer one over the other ?
voragh:
Perhaps if you would provide the full thought you’re trying to translate.
At the moment I can't think of something in particular. But I often come across the need to use {Hoch *verb*bogh noun}, when the verb isn't a be-verb. For example: "each rabbit which jumps". ~ hkhkhk
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 16:05, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
voragh:
Perhaps if you would provide the full thought you’re trying to translate.
At the moment I can't think of something in particular.
But I often come across the need to use {Hoch *verb*bogh noun}, when the verb isn't a be-verb.
For example: "each rabbit which jumps".
chay' "each rabbit which eats" Damugh? -- De'vID
Another option would be {cheS’e’ Sopbogh Hoch.} As for rabbits, all which eat. Or, if one were to assume that you don’t make the common error of omitting the {lu-} prefix: Hoch Sopbogh cheSmey Of course, this probably shifts “each rabbit” to becoming “all rabbits”… depending on how important this difference is to the specific meaning intended... charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 12, 2019, at 10:34 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
chay' "each rabbit which eats" Damugh?
Hoch Sopbogh cheS
I see there's some ambiguity in this sentence, since it could mean too "rabbit which eats all", but I think context would specify the intended meaning.
~ hkhkhk _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/12/2019 11:42 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Another option would be {cheS’e’ Sopbogh Hoch.} As for rabbits, all which eat.
Is this meant to be a noun-noun construction? That doesn't work, because you can't put a type 5 noun suffix on the first noun of a noun-noun construction. If it's meant to be two components of part of a larger sentence, like *cheS'e', Sopbogh Hoch vIlegh*/As for rabbits, I see all which eat,/ remember that Okrand told us that using a type 5'd topic at the beginning of a sentence that isn't a subject or object would be highly marked. It's basically not a real option. The only thing that *cheS'e' Sopbogh Hoch* would normally be interpreted as is /rabbit which everyone eats./ *cheS'e' Sopbogh Hoch vIlegh*/I see the rabbit which everyone eats./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding. I was unaware that {-‘e’} didn’t work like other type 5 suffixes that give a noun a non-subject or object reason to participate in the sentence. It seems to make it COMPLETELY different from any other Type 5. Why not make it a Type 6 and give it a special rule preventing it from being used with any Type 5? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 12, 2019, at 11:50 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/12/2019 11:42 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Another option would be {cheS’e’ Sopbogh Hoch.} As for rabbits, all which eat. Is this meant to be a noun-noun construction? That doesn't work, because you can't put a type 5 noun suffix on the first noun of a noun-noun construction.
If it's meant to be two components of part of a larger sentence, like cheS'e', Sopbogh Hoch vIlegh As for rabbits, I see all which eat, remember that Okrand told us that using a type 5'd topic at the beginning of a sentence that isn't a subject or object would be highly marked. It's basically not a real option.
The only thing that cheS'e' Sopbogh Hoch would normally be interpreted as is rabbit which everyone eats. cheS'e' Sopbogh Hoch vIlegh I see the rabbit which everyone eats.
-- 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 7/12/2019 3:18 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding. I was unaware that {-‘e’} didn’t work like other type 5 suffixes that give a noun a non-subject or object reason to participate in the sentence.
It seems to make it COMPLETELY different from any other Type 5.
Why not make it a Type 6 and give it a special rule preventing it from being used with any Type 5?
See this related quotation for the reason: It is interesting that *-Ha’* always occurs right after the verb. It is not known why Klingon grammarians insist on calling it a rover. It was felt best not to argue with Klingon tradition, however, so *-Ha’* is here classified as a rover. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 7/12/2019 9:34 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Hoch tIQbogh vIghro'
each cat which is ancient
tIQbogh Hoch vIghro'
each cat which is ancient
Are the above two options equally correct ? Should I prefer one over the other ?
Being ancient is a more essential quality of the cats than their "eachness," so it should remain the most tightly bound to it. Let *X* = *tIQbogh vIghro'*/ancient cat/ Then *Hoch X* is /each X./ *Hoch tIQbogh vIghro'.* You frequently ask about these scope issues. Figure out which elements are more closely bound together and mirror this in the grammar. The most tightly bound elements will be nested the most deeply. ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin