The Klingon dictionary is clear that numbers "may stand alone as subjects or objects or they may modify another noun." It is an easy logical leap to treat {'ar} in the same way, but {'ar} is not a type of number and so that may not be allowed. TKD says only that {'ar} "follows the noun to which it refers." Does anyone know if any canon which uses {'ar} as a stand alone subject or object? What do you think of that use of it and particularly if teaching that use of it?
On 8/22/2018 9:37 AM, David Holt wrote:
The Klingon dictionary is clear that numbers "may stand alone as subjects or objects or they may modify another noun." It is an easy logical leap to treat {'ar} in the same way, but {'ar} is not a type of number and so that may not be allowed. TKD says only that {'ar} "follows the noun to which it refers." Does anyone know if any canon which uses {'ar} as a stand alone subject or object? What do you think of that use of it and particularly if teaching that use of it?
The sentence that raised this question, by the way, is *'ar bo'ab,* meant to mean /How tall are you?/ I would point out that only *'Iv* and *nuq* (and, by extension of suffix, *nuqDaq*) act like pronouns, substituting for the answer. *'ar *does not substitute itself for a number. This is clear not only because *'ar* comes after the noun, not before, and constrains its use of a plural suffix, but because *'ar* can be used on mass nouns where numbers cannot. You can ask *nIn 'ar wIghaj*/How much fuel do we have?/ but you cannot say *vagh nIn wIghaj */We have five fuels./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.08.2018 um 15:57 schrieb SuStel:
I would point out that only *'Iv* and *nuq* (and, by extension of suffix, *nuqDaq*) act like pronouns, substituting for the answer.
Who says "only"? This is again a situation where Okrand does not say "this is how it works", but he does not say the opposite. Just because he did no mention that {'ar} works like {nuq} does not mean that it does not. This is just my opinion, but I think that {'ar Dalegh} is absolutely correct. It even follows the rule if you think of a "zero"-noun: {[Doch] 'ar Dalegh}. "how many [things] do you see?" And the answer to {'ar Dalegh} is e.g. {vagh vIlegh}. Why not?
*does not substitute itself for a number. This is clear not only because *'ar* comes after the noun, not before, and constrains its use of a plural suffix, but because *'ar* can be used on mass nouns where numbers cannot. You can ask *nIn 'ar wIghaj*/How much fuel do we have?/ but you cannot say *vagh nIn wIghaj */We have five fuels./
Don't forget it can be used on mass nouns, but also on countable things. You an ask {nughoS SuvwI' 'ar} and the answer is {nughoS vagh SuvwI'}. So that's turned around then. By the way, in English, the problem is the same: You can ask "How much fuel do we have?" but you cannot say "We have five fuels" either. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Questions
On 8/22/2018 10:41 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 22.08.2018 um 15:57 schrieb SuStel:
I would point out that only *'Iv* and *nuq* (and, by extension of suffix, *nuqDaq*) act like pronouns, substituting for the answer.
Who says "only"?
This is again a situation where Okrand does not say "this is how it works", but he does not say the opposite. Just because he did no mention that {'ar} works like {nuq} does not mean that it does not.
Jesus Christ. TKD presents a master list of question words, then it singles out *'Iv* and *nuq* and says they fit into the sentence in the position that would be occupied by the answer. It then says *nuqDaq* is *nuq + -Daq* and says it goes at the beginning where any locative phrase would go. Then it says *chay', ghorgh, *and*qatlh* go at the beginning too. *chay',* he adds, can be used as a standalone sentence. Finally, it says, *'ar* follows the noun to which it refers, and that noun may not have a plural suffix on it. Okrand was not being vague. He gives very clear instructions for how to use these words. He adds a new rule in /Conversational Klingon/ about *'ar* being used as a standalone like *chay',* and he adds a new word *'arlogh* later on. He also clarifies that the pronounness of *'Iv* and *nuq* extend to the ability to be verb-like when used as copulas. But he has never done anything to contradict these rules, and he has never done anything to suggest that *'ar* can act like a pronoun in the way *'Iv* and *nuq* can. He has the right to do so later, but he hasn't so far. So forgive me if I condense all those paragraphs down to "only." BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. I'll tell you what. I hereby declare that relative clauses don't require head nouns. And I have Okrand's own words to back me up. He says in a file on the Klingon Language Lab CD, *Dajatlhbogh vISovbe'*//and it's matched by another files that says /I don't know what you said./ After all, Okrand never said that relative clauses HAVE to have head nouns, right? So start accepting this phrase and the grammar behind it.
This is just my opinion, but I think that {'ar Dalegh} is absolutely correct. It even follows the rule if you think of a "zero"-noun: {[Doch] 'ar Dalegh}. "how many [things] do you see?"
What the hell is a zero-noun? That isn't a thing in Klingon.
*does not substitute itself for a number. This is clear not only because *'ar* comes after the noun, not before, and constrains its use of a plural suffix, but because *'ar* can be used on mass nouns where numbers cannot. You can ask *nIn 'ar wIghaj*/How much fuel do we have?/ but you cannot say *vagh nIn wIghaj */We have five fuels./
Don't forget it can be used on mass nouns, but also on countable things.
I haven't forgotten that. It's not relevant to the point.
By the way, in English, the problem is the same: You can ask "How much fuel do we have?" but you cannot say "We have five fuels" either.
Which should have been completely clear from my post, and which just further demonstrates the point. I had originally started my example with *bIQ 'ar,* but then I realized that someone was going to sniffle and say that you can talk about /five waters/ in English if you imagine them as bottles of water, so I went looking for something that didn't have that possibility in English. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.08.2018 um 17:08 schrieb SuStel:
Jesus Christ. [...] So forgive me if I condense all those paragraphs down to "only." BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.
Please, calm down. It was YOU who has always taught me not to interpret TKD just because one thinks that's what it means. It was YOU who has always attacked me just to say that if it's not explicitely written down than we cannot assume that it's the way we understand it. Okrand does not use the word "only". You did. You just did what you always accused me of doing. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/MainPage
On 8/22/2018 11:28 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 22.08.2018 um 17:08 schrieb SuStel:
Jesus Christ. [...] So forgive me if I condense all those paragraphs down to "only." BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.
Please, calm down.
It was YOU who has always taught me not to interpret TKD just because one thinks that's what it means.
It was YOU who has always attacked me just to say that if it's not explicitely written down than we cannot assume that it's the way we understand it.
Okrand does not use the word "only". You did. You just did what you always accused me of doing.
I did not say there's a RULE that other question words can't be used as pronouns. I said "only *'Iv* and *nuq...* act like pronouns." I didn't say Okrand denied any others. Those are the ones described in the text as acting like pronouns; all the others are given different instructions. With all question words accounted for, ONLY *'Iv* and *nuq* act like pronouns. The others don't, because they are explicitly used in other ways, and because they were left out of the *'Iv* and *nuq* description. That doesn't mean Okrand can't add such a use later. But it does mean that using, say, *'ar* as a number pronoun violates the instructions for its use, and adds the word to the list of pronoun-like question words that Okrand did NOT add it to himself. You are making up new rules of grammar that violate the existing rules. I do not say don't interpret TKD; I do not say don't say anything that is not explicitly stated. I DO say not to ADD anything to your interpretation that isn't explicitly stated or demonstrated through example. My saying "only" doesn't deny the possibility that Okrand will later give us an explicit statement or a demonstration through example. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
The "question word" 'ar in canon: nIn 'ar wIghaj How much fuel do we have left? [TKD & CK] nIn 'ar ghaj How much fuel do we have (left)? [clipped] PK Huch 'ar DaneH? How much money do you want? TKD Haw'pu' yaS 'ar How many officers fled? TKD Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH How much do you want for that? TKD mughoS 'avwI' 'ar How many guards are coming? CK There is one example of 'ar used by itself as a simple one-word question - not as the subject or object of a verb - in "Conversational Klingon" (in the section about going out shopping you've checked into your hotel): CK: "As accommodating as it is, you will not want to spend all of your time in your [hotel] room. You might want to get out and go shopping. As you look into various stores you will soon discover that there is very little to buy except for food and weapons, and these for the most cannot be taken out of the Empire. If somehow you find something you are permitted to buy, such as food you can eat right away, you will need to know how to ask only one question: How much? 'ar? One credit. wa' DeQ. Buy or die! bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh. Pay now! DaH yIDIl! Adding the number suffix -logh changes things: (st.klingon 2/1999): 'arlogh how many times? a word that functions adverbially, made up of the question word 'ar how much? How many? and the special number suffix -logh times (as in six times) 'arlogh Qoylu'pu' How many times has (someone) heard (it)? How many times has it been heard? (i.e. What time is it?) [st.k 2/1999] 'arlogh wab Qoylu'pu' How many times has someone heard the sound? How many times has the sound been heard? (i.e. What time is it?) [st.k 2/1999] qen 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'? Recently, how many times has someone heard it? (i.e. What time is it?) [st.k 2/1999] But this 'arlogh is an adverbial-like time stamp, not a subject or object of a verb. If you want to ask "How tall are you all? or "How far is Kronos?" I suspect you have to specify the unit of measurement: 'uj 'ar bo'ab or qelI'qam 'ar Hop Qo'noS. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons From: SuStel On 8/22/2018 9:37 AM, David Holt wrote: The Klingon dictionary is clear that numbers "may stand alone as subjects or objects or they may modify another noun." It is an easy logical leap to treat {'ar} in the same way, but {'ar} is not a type of number and so that may not be allowed. TKD says only that {'ar} "follows the noun to which it refers." Does anyone know if any canon which uses {'ar} as a stand alone subject or object? What do you think of that use of it and particularly if teaching that use of it? The sentence that raised this question, by the way, is 'ar bo'ab, meant to mean How tall are you? I would point out that only 'Iv and nuq (and, by extension of suffix, nuqDaq) act like pronouns, substituting for the answer. 'ar does not substitute itself for a number. This is clear not only because 'ar comes after the noun, not before, and constrains its use of a plural suffix, but because 'ar can be used on mass nouns where numbers cannot. You can ask nIn 'ar wIghaj How much fuel do we have? but you cannot say vagh nIn wIghaj We have five fuels. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:50 AM Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Adding the number suffix –*logh* changes things:
(st.klingon 2/1999): *'arlogh* *how many times*? a word that functions adverbially, made up of the question word *'ar* *how much*? *How many*? and the special number suffix -*logh* *times* (as in *six times*)
I wonder if *'arDIch* is possible, meaning something like "what number?", "which position in a series?", or "how manyth?", and expecting an ordinal number *(wa'DIch, cha'DIch*, etc.) in response. German has an interrogative *wievielter* which, *vIqawchu'chugh*, has a similar meaning. *che'wI' 'arDIch ghaH Barack Obama'e'?* "Which president was Obama?", expecting an answer like *che'wI' loSmaH loSDIch ghaH.* *qIj puH DujlIj 'arDIch?* "Which of your cars was black?" (That is, which of the cars in the series of cars you've owned was black?) *QapwI' 'arDIch SoH?* "What place did you come in?" (I don't know how Klingons talk about placing in a competition but* QapwI' wa'DIch* for "first place", *QapwI' cha'DIch* for "second place", might work for now. Or maybe not.)
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:37 AM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
The Klingon dictionary is clear that numbers "may stand alone as subjects or objects or they may modify another noun." It is an easy logical leap to treat {'ar} in the same way, but {'ar} is not a type of number and so that may not be allowed. TKD says only that {'ar} "follows the noun to which it refers." Does anyone know if any canon which uses {'ar} as a stand alone subject or object? What do you think of that use of it and particularly if teaching that use of it?
In Power Klingon, it's apparently used as a standalone *verb*: "If somehow you find something you are permitted to buy, such as food you can eat right away, you will need to know how to ask only one question: <How much?> {'ar.}" In its typical use following a noun, I think of {'ar} as an interrogative adjective. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 8/22/2018 10:23 AM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:37 AM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com <mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com>> wrote:
The Klingon dictionary is clear that numbers "may stand alone as subjects or objects or they may modify another noun." It is an easy logical leap to treat {'ar} in the same way, but {'ar} is not a type of number and so that may not be allowed. TKD says only that {'ar} "follows the noun to which it refers." Does anyone know if any canon which uses {'ar} as a stand alone subject or object? What do you think of that use of it and particularly if teaching that use of it?
In Power Klingon, it's apparently used as a standalone *verb*:
I've always thought of that as an interrogative exclamation, much like *chay'?* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.08.2018 um 16:31 schrieb SuStel:> I've always thought of that as an interrogative exclamation, much like
*chay'?*
I agree. And in addition, I think any question word can be used standalone, as in english: {nuqDaq?} - "Where?" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Questions
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
David Holt -
Lieven L. Litaer -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel