Two {-'e'}'s in a pronoun sentence.
If we write a sentence as "a is b" we need to place the {'e'} on b. So we need to write {b 'oH a'e'}. If we wanted to stress the b, could we place an {-'e'} there too ? Could we write {b'e' 'oH a'e'} ? And there is another thing too.. Lets say we write {b 'oHbogh a'e'}; and we want the b to be the subject of a larger sentence. Could we write {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh a'e'} ? But if we could indeed do something like this, wouldn't there be confusion with regards to which one of the two (a or b) is the subject ? qunnoq
On 12 September 2017 at 16:22, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If we write a sentence as "a is b" we need to place the {'e'} on b. So we need to write {b 'oH a'e'}.
If we wanted to stress the b, could we place an {-'e'} there too ? Could we write {b'e' 'oH a'e'} ?
What do you think? Why or why not?
Lets say we write {b 'oHbogh a'e'}; and we want the b to be the subject of a larger sentence. Could we write {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh a'e'} ? But if we could indeed do something like this, wouldn't there be confusion with regards to which one of the two (a or b) is the subject ?
Can you give me an example of {b 'oHbogh a'e'} where b is the subject of a larger sentence? -- De'vID
On Sep 12, 2017 5:44 PM, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: On 12 September 2017 at 16:22, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If we write a sentence as "a is b" we need to place the {'e'} on b. So we need to write {b 'oH a'e'}.
If we wanted to stress the b, could we place an {-'e'} there too ? Could we write {b'e' 'oH a'e'} ?
What do you think? Why or why not? Since the {b 'oH a'e'} translates to "as for a it is b", and since the emphatic {-'e'}, essentially describes the emphasis on the voice of the speaker, then I would say that yes, we could have an emphatic {-'e'} on the b. {nepwI''e' chaH verengan'e'} as for the ferengi, they are LIARS
Lets say we write {b 'oHbogh a'e'}; and we want the b to be the subject of a larger sentence. Could we write {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh a'e'} ? But if we could indeed do something like this, wouldn't there be confusion with regards to which one of the two (a or b) is the subject ?
Can you give me an example of {b 'oHbogh a'e'} where b is the subject of a larger sentence? {nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'} the liars which are the ferengi deceived us I think that the klingon sentence is correct, though I am not quite certain as far as the english translation is concerned. qunnoq
On 12 September 2017 at 17:07, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you give me an example of {b 'oHbogh a'e'} where b is the subject of a larger sentence?
{nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'} the liars which are the ferengi deceived us
How is this different from {nutojta' verengan chaHbogh nepwI''e'}? -- De'vID
mayqel qunenoS :
Can you give me an example of {b 'oHbogh a'e'} where b is the subject of a larger sentence?
{nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'} the liars which are the ferengi deceived us
De'vID:
How is this different from {nutojta' verengan chaHbogh nepwI''e'}?
or even {nutojta' verengan nepwI'pu'} ? == Voragh
Am 12.09.2017 um 17:15 schrieb De'vID:
{nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'} the liars which are the ferengi deceived us
This is mixed up very often. I believe to see that in a To-Be-phrase, the word order is reversed, so "A is B" is in Klingon {B 'oH A'e'}. I base thi on TKD: "If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun". So {nepwI' chaH verengan'e'} is "The Ferengi are liars". When adding {-bogh}, I get the "ferengi which are liars" and not "liars which are ferengi".
How is this different
I see it as follows: {nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'} "the Ferengi which are liars (and nothing else) have deceived us" = there are many ferengi, but only those who are liars (and nothing else) have deceived us. {nutojta' verengan chaHbogh nepwI''e'} "the liars which are ferengi deceived us" = there are many liars on board the ship, but only those who are Ferengi have deceived us. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
I agree 100% with the analysis provided by lieven. So, if I understand correctly: Yes, we can have the construction {b'e' 'oH a'e'}. Yes, we can have the construction {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh 'a'e'}. If I understand wrong, then do correct me. qunnoq On Sep 12, 2017 6:33 PM, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 12.09.2017 um 17:15 schrieb De'vID:
{nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'}
the liars which are the ferengi deceived us
This is mixed up very often. I believe to see that in a To-Be-phrase, the word order is reversed, so "A is B" is in Klingon {B 'oH A'e'}. I base thi on TKD: "If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun".
So {nepwI' chaH verengan'e'} is "The Ferengi are liars".
When adding {-bogh}, I get the "ferengi which are liars" and not "liars which are ferengi".
How is this different
I see it as follows:
{nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'} "the Ferengi which are liars (and nothing else) have deceived us" = there are many ferengi, but only those who are liars (and nothing else) have deceived us.
{nutojta' verengan chaHbogh nepwI''e'} "the liars which are ferengi deceived us" = there are many liars on board the ship, but only those who are Ferengi have deceived us.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:26 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree 100% with the analysis provided by lieven.
So, if I understand correctly:
Yes, we can have the construction {b'e' 'oH a'e'}. Yes, we can have the construction {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh 'a'e'}.
If I understand wrong, then do correct me.
How did you get that understanding from the examples people have posted? No one else here has used a sentence with two {-'e'} suffixes; most of the discussion has been about word order and finding clearer ways to rephrase your sentences. The {-'e'} suffix is a topic marker. It has the same meaning in the {X 'oH Y'e'} construction as it does in any other sentence. It describes the topic of the sentence, what the focus of the sentence is on, and a sentence (or at least a well-written one) can't have two focuses.* In your examples, {nepwI''e' chaH verengan'e'} and {nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'}, which is more important to emphasize as the topic of the sentence: that the people you're talking about are liars, or that they're Ferengi? Pick one, and build your sentence accordingly. I enjoy asking questions about the weird possibilities of Klingon grammar as much as the next person, assuming that the next person really enjoys it. (I've got some questions on the prefix trick...) But after a while you have to realize that you're probably not opening up productive new avenues of linguistic innovation, you're just trying to convince yourself that nonsense isn't nonsense. At best, you're just coming up with new kinds of {chIch pabHa'ghach} "intentional ungrammaticality", like using prefixless {tu'lu'} with plural objects, or using an adverbial with a nominalized verb. We don't really have a context for using intentional ungrammaticality very often on the mailing list. * I do wonder about sentences of the form {X verbbogh Y'e' ghaH Z'e'}, where the {-'e'} is used as a pronoun-copula subject marker AND as a relative-clause head-noun marker. My suspicion is that it's probably okay, because the first {-'e'} marks the topic of the relative clause while the second marks the topic of the main clause, but there's no examples I'm aware of.
nIqolay Q:
But after a while you have to realize that you're probably not > opening up productive new avenues of linguistic innovation, > you're just trying to convince yourself that nonsense isn't nonsense.
One thing which truly amazes me on this list, is how some people are always ready to judge others with regards to the questions they choose to ask. Has anyone here appointed himself as the klingon-police, who will examine the quality of other people's questions and pass judgement as far as their motives for asking are concerned ? Either you like it or not, different things will concern different people, and each person will require assistance with regards to the obstacles he has encountered. When I ask something, I am not asking in order to just post a question. I ask because I have come across an obstacle. Or do I need to explain myself each time I ask something ? So relax. Noone is defiling your immaculate klingon grammar. qunnoq On Sep 12, 2017 8:01 PM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:26 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree 100% with the analysis provided by lieven.
So, if I understand correctly:
Yes, we can have the construction {b'e' 'oH a'e'}. Yes, we can have the construction {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh 'a'e'}.
If I understand wrong, then do correct me.
How did you get that understanding from the examples people have posted? No one else here has used a sentence with two {-'e'} suffixes; most of the discussion has been about word order and finding clearer ways to rephrase your sentences. The {-'e'} suffix is a topic marker. It has the same meaning in the {X 'oH Y'e'} construction as it does in any other sentence. It describes the topic of the sentence, what the focus of the sentence is on, and a sentence (or at least a well-written one) can't have two focuses.*
In your examples, {nepwI''e' chaH verengan'e'} and {nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'}, which is more important to emphasize as the topic of the sentence: that the people you're talking about are liars, or that they're Ferengi? Pick one, and build your sentence accordingly.
I enjoy asking questions about the weird possibilities of Klingon grammar as much as the next person, assuming that the next person really enjoys it. (I've got some questions on the prefix trick...) But after a while you have to realize that you're probably not opening up productive new avenues of linguistic innovation, you're just trying to convince yourself that nonsense isn't nonsense. At best, you're just coming up with new kinds of {chIch pabHa'ghach} "intentional ungrammaticality", like using prefixless {tu'lu'} with plural objects, or using an adverbial with a nominalized verb. We don't really have a context for using intentional ungrammaticality very often on the mailing list.
* I do wonder about sentences of the form {X verbbogh Y'e' ghaH Z'e'}, where the {-'e'} is used as a pronoun-copula subject marker AND as a relative-clause head-noun marker. My suspicion is that it's probably okay, because the first {-'e'} marks the topic of the relative clause while the second marks the topic of the main clause, but there's no examples I'm aware of.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:21 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
nIqolay Q:
But after a while you have to realize that you're probably not > opening up productive new avenues of linguistic innovation, > you're just trying to convince yourself that nonsense isn't nonsense.
One thing which truly amazes me on this list, is how some people are always ready to judge others with regards to the questions they choose to ask.
I don't see his statement as judging, just stating that sometimes the path that questions follow leads to nonsense. I read it as being from personal experience. Sometimes we all go down the nonsense hole, and sometimes we need someone else to point out that we are in it. This is part of the learning process.
Has anyone here appointed himself as the klingon-police, who will examine the quality of other people's questions and pass judgement as far as their motives for asking are concerned ?
No one is judging your motives for asking questions, but just as you have the right to ask any question, others have the right to answer those questions by saying the questions or answers don't make sense to them.
Either you like it or not, different things will concern different people, and each person will require assistance with regards to the obstacles he has encountered.
When I ask something, I am not asking in order to just post a question. I ask because I have come across an obstacle.
Or do I need to explain myself each time I ask something ?
If you explained the obstacle that you came across, that would probably actually be very helpful for those trying to get you answers. If we knew you were trying to say X, then someone might be able to tell you a way it's been expressed in the past. Context is very important in Klingon, so abstract discussions of grammar can be tough if other people don't know your goal. I, personally, can't think of a time when I'd want to use something like {b'e' 'oH a'e'} or {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh 'a'e'}. The example you give of {nepwI''e' chaH verengan'e'} would come out of my head as {verengan nepwI''e' chaH} "They are Ferengi LIARS" which avoids the issue. While {nutojta' nepwI''e' chaHbogh verengan'e'} would come out of my head as {nuyojta' verengan nepwI''e'} "The Ferengi LIARS deceived us".
So relax. Noone is defiling your immaculate klingon grammar.
I would ask you to do the same thing and not assume people are judging you personally when they voice their opinion about a question or opinion you wrote. You also did ask for people to correct you, and telling you that you may be in the nonsense hole IS part of correcting you. :) qurgh
On 9/12/2017 1:47 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
I, personally, can't think of a time when I'd want to use something like {b'e' 'oH a'e'} or {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh 'a'e'}.
I run into this all the time. I don't have any examples in mind, because I quickly forget about them as soon as I just reword whatever it is. But it definitely comes up. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:21 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
nIqolay Q:
But after a while you have to realize that you're probably not > opening up productive new avenues of linguistic innovation, > you're just trying to convince yourself that nonsense isn't nonsense.
One thing which truly amazes me on this list, is how some people are always ready to judge others with regards to the questions they choose to ask.
Has anyone here appointed himself as the klingon-police, who will examine the quality of other people's questions and pass judgement as far as their motives for asking are concerned ?
Either you like it or not, different things will concern different people, and each person will require assistance with regards to the obstacles he has encountered.
The comment about "nonsense" wasn't in reference to your question. It's a perfectly fine question to ask, and I enjoyed answering it. The "nonsense" was in reference to sentences with two {-'e'}, and I explained why I thought such sentences were nonsense -- because {-'e'} is a topic marker and sentences have one topic. Like I said, I also think about weird corner cases of Klingon grammar a lot, and in doing so often I'll reach a point where I'll think to myself: "It'd be convenient if this were acceptable, sure. But there's no examples of it, there's plenty of potential examples that use another construction, it seems to go against the precedents of other known grammar, and there's other, far less controversial ways to phrase the same idea. So it's probably not acceptable, and if I try using it it will look like nonsense." And so I put that thought aside, and find simpler ways to translate things. (If I were to ask Okrand about all the weird corner cases I've thought about in my years of doing Klingon, he'd shoot me in the head after ten minutes, and I'd probably still keep talking for five more.) Maybe in the future Okrand will say "it's acceptable to say {X'e' ghah Y'e'}" and you will be vindicated and I will look like a chump. Maybe not. My guess is that he'd say it's not grammatical, but also that it's understandable and acceptable in less formal or less strictly-grammatical contexts, along the lines of {tu'lu'} with plural objects or using {-la'/-luH} as a type 5 suffix. When I ask something, I am not asking in order to just post a question. I
ask because I have come across an obstacle.
My thing here is that a lot of times when you ask questions, it sort of seems like you've gotten hung up on one specific sort of idea or phrasing or whatever, without exploring alternatives first. Whether it's okay to use two {-'e'} suffixes in one sentence is a fine question to ask when you're musing about the possibilities of grammar. But I'm having trouble seeing how it's an outright obstacle to translation, since most {X'e' 'oH Y'e'} sentences could be rephrased to not need two {-'e'} suffixes at all. When you ask "Is such-and-such a construction acceptable?", also ask "Does it need to be?" Often you won't need some elaborate or unattested construction to finish a translation.
On 9/12/2017 12:26 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Yes, we can have the construction {b'e' 'oH a'e'}. Yes, we can have the construction {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh 'a'e'}.
No one has demonstrated that either of these is true. I personally don't think they're true. I think having an *-'e'* on the subject of a "to be" sentence excludes having it on any other noun. But I can't prove a negative. Barring explicit advice from Okrand, I recommend you not do either of these. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qunnoq:
Lets say we write {b 'oHbogh a'e'}; and we want the b to be the subject of a larger sentence. Could we write {yadda yadda yadda b'e' 'oHbogh a'e'} ? But if we could indeed do something like this, wouldn't there be confusion with regards to which one of the two (a or b) is the subject ?
De'vID:
Can you give me an example of {b 'oHbogh a'e'} where b is the subject of a larger sentence?
AFAIK there are no examples of {-bogh} attached directly to a pronoun, though there are a few with an intervening {-taH}: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe' I'm lost. (TKD Useful Expressions) vaj matlhutlhjaj ghe'torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI' wIquvmoHjaj Heghbogh loDnI'wI' wIquvmoHjaj! Let us drink then To my father in Gre'thor And the brother I once had. (PB) qeylISvaD jach 'ej beyDaj luqImmo' yuQDaq ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e' Qomqa' Hoch Qo'noS nuvpu' All of Kronos trembled once more, For every Klingon on the planet Followed her cry for Kahless. (PB) lugh luqara' joH qanra' le'yo' lutmey Saja'pu' DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja' [translation not available] (PB) Note that these all refer to location -- though I'm not sure how to translate the last PB example. -- Voragh
On 9/12/2017 11:14 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
lugh luqara' joH qanra' le'yo' lutmey Saja'pu' DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja' [translation not available] (PB)
The Lady Lukara is right, Kahnrah, I have shared stories of pride with you, Now I will tell you why I am here. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (7)
-
De'vID -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
qurgh lungqIj -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel