laj lajQo' {-vIp} and imperatives
If I remember correctly, tkd has the Ca'Non example: HIHoHvIpQo' don't be afraid to kill me If I say HIlajvIpQo', according to the above, it should translate to "don't be afraid to accept me". However, the lajQo', has been given as "reject". So, this means that saying HIlajvIpQo' means/can mean too "be afraid to reject me". If the above are correct, then we have a sentence with two different meanings. "Don't be afraid to accept me", sounds like an encouragement. "Be afraid to reject me", sounds like a threat. Does anyone have any comments on this matter ? ~ m. qunen'oS
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 21:33 mayqel qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If I remember correctly, tkd has the Ca'Non example:
HIHoHvIpQo' don't be afraid to kill me
If I say HIlajvIpQo', according to the above, it should translate to "don't be afraid to accept me".
lugh. However, the lajQo', has been given as "reject".
mughmeH Qu' napmoHmeH neH jIyweS 'oH mu'vam'e'. So, this means that saying HIlajvIpQo' means/can mean too "be afraid to
reject me".
lughbe'. -- De'vID
The issue here is that since {-Qo’} is a non-roving rover, you can’t assume what it is negating. The preceding suffix? The main verb? This is one of those cases where context would probably disambiguate, and if being understood is important, then you should provide enough context, or come up with some other phrasing to be less ambiguous. We can always come up with ambiguous statements. All natural languages have them, and artificial languages designed to not have them are torturous to use because being unambiguous trumps priorities like concise expression. All communication is incomplete. Every expression is a compromise between efficiency and comprehensive meaning. choSovbe’, ‘ach qaHIV not ‘e’ vIHech. qaQaHlaH. HIlajvIpQo’. or chomevlaHbe’ba'. HIlajvIpQo’. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 7, 2019, at 4:03 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 21:33 mayqel qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: If I remember correctly, tkd has the Ca'Non example:
HIHoHvIpQo' don't be afraid to kill me
If I say HIlajvIpQo', according to the above, it should translate to "don't be afraid to accept me".
lugh.
However, the lajQo', has been given as "reject".
mughmeH Qu' napmoHmeH neH jIyweS 'oH mu'vam'e'.
So, this means that saying HIlajvIpQo' means/can mean too "be afraid to reject me".
lughbe'.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I understand the arguments so far, but there is still something I don't understand. First, lets remember what was written, in the leaflet of qep'a' 2017: "Finally... a note about -Qo'. There's apparently been some confusion about -be' and -Qo' in imperatives. This is no doubt because this was not explained as clearly as it could have been in the Dictionary. The rule says -Qo' "is used in imperatives" and that -Qo' is "the imperative counterpart to -be'." The rule isn't that -be' can't appear anywhere in an imperative construction; it's that -be' can't be used to mean "don't!" - use -Qo' for that. In other words, -Qo' is used (and -be' is not) to indicate a negative command, when the meaning of the command is "don't do X!" X may contain a -be', but if the command is to not do X, you still need -Qo' at the end (if you're saying "don't do X" and not "do not-X")". (I copied the above by hand from the leaflet, so double-check with it for possible errors). And now, lets return to the original subject of this thread. jIH:
If I remember correctly, tkd has the Ca'Non example: HIHoHvIpQo' don't be afraid to kill me If I say HIlajvIpQo', according to the above, it should translate to "don't be afraid to accept me". De'vID: lugh
So far so good. jIH:
However, the lajQo', has been given as "reject". De'vID: mughmeH Qu' napmoHmeH neH jIyweS 'oH mu'vam'e'.
ok, I understand this too. So, lets say I write HIlajQo'. The way I understand it, it literally means "don't accept me". And if I write HIlajvIpQo', then it means "don't be afraid to accept me". However, if I write HIlajbe', according to the qep'a' 2017, then what does it mean ? "not accept me" ? And if I write HIlajvIpbe', is it "be not afraid to accept be" ? And if I wrote HIlajvIpbe'Qo', is it "don't be not afraid to accept me" ? I'm asking this because I'm trying to understand, what the qep'a' information on using -be' in imperatives actually means. ~ m. qunen'oS
jIH:
And if I write HIlajvIpbe', is it "be not afraid to accept be" ? And if I wrote HIlajvIpbe'Qo', is it "don't be not afraid to accept me" ?
I just thought of two more possibilities: HIlajbe'vIp, which I interpret as "be afraid not to accept me". HIlajbe'vIpQo', which I interpret as "don't be afraid not to accept me" Of course, I don't know whether I'm right, and I wish we had been given Ca'Non examples, in order to understand how -be' actually works in imperatives. ~ m. qunen'oS
My read of the note is that ALL NEGATIVE IMPERATIVES USE {Qo’}. In addition to that, some imperatives might also have one or more {-be’}s. I don’t think you can have an imperative that has {-be’} instead of {-Qo’}. Note that {-be’} is the only suffix that can be used more than once in a Klingon verb, since it is the only true roving suffix, and it specifically negates whatever it follows. It can be ambiguous, in terms of whether it negates only the suffix immediately in front of it, or if it negates the entire verb and suffix string leading up to it. The point is that it doesn’t negate anything that follows it. I don’t think you could string multiple {-be’}s together. That would be “highly marked”, like putting {-ghach} on a bare verb. But nothing stops you from putting multiple {-be’}s along the string of suffixes after a verb, so nothing stops you from doing so before {-Qo’}. Meanwhile negating a command is synonymous to “don’t”, so you can’t negate a command without {-Qo’}. … unless someone can come up with a weird case that currently escapes me. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 8, 2019, at 6:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand the arguments so far, but there is still something I don't understand.
First, lets remember what was written, in the leaflet of qep'a' 2017:
"Finally... a note about -Qo'. There's apparently been some confusion about -be' and -Qo' in imperatives. This is no doubt because this was not explained as clearly as it could have been in the Dictionary. The rule says -Qo' "is used in imperatives" and that -Qo' is "the imperative counterpart to -be'." The rule isn't that -be' can't appear anywhere in an imperative construction; it's that -be' can't be used to mean "don't!" - use -Qo' for that. In other words, -Qo' is used (and -be' is not) to indicate a negative command, when the meaning of the command is "don't do X!" X may contain a -be', but if the command is to not do X, you still need -Qo' at the end (if you're saying "don't do X" and not "do not-X")".
(I copied the above by hand from the leaflet, so double-check with it for possible errors).
And now, lets return to the original subject of this thread.
jIH:
If I remember correctly, tkd has the Ca'Non example: HIHoHvIpQo' don't be afraid to kill me If I say HIlajvIpQo', according to the above, it should translate to "don't be afraid to accept me". De'vID: lugh
So far so good.
jIH:
However, the lajQo', has been given as "reject". De'vID: mughmeH Qu' napmoHmeH neH jIyweS 'oH mu'vam'e'.
ok, I understand this too.
So, lets say I write HIlajQo'. The way I understand it, it literally means "don't accept me".
And if I write HIlajvIpQo', then it means "don't be afraid to accept me".
However, if I write HIlajbe', according to the qep'a' 2017, then what does it mean ? "not accept me" ? And if I write HIlajvIpbe', is it "be not afraid to accept be" ? And if I wrote HIlajvIpbe'Qo', is it "don't be not afraid to accept me" ?
I'm asking this because I'm trying to understand, what the qep'a' information on using -be' in imperatives actually means.
~ m. qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 13:54 Will Martin, <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
My read of the note is that ALL NEGATIVE IMPERATIVES USE {Qo’}. In addition to that, some imperatives might also have one or more {-be’}s. I don’t think you can have an imperative that has {-be’} instead of {-Qo’}.
The quoted passage was intended to explain that {HIleghbe'moH} "Cause me to not see" was not ruled out by what's written in TKD. In that sense, it's not about "negative imperatives" at all. It's about {-be'} being allowed to appear in imperatives when the command is a "positive" one (i.e., an order to do something and not an order not to do something). -- De'vID
On 6/8/2019 7:54 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Note that {-be’} is the only suffix that can be used more than once in a Klingon verb, since it is the only true roving suffix,
jIQochqu'be'qu'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
HIvqa’ veqlargh! Where else can one find such excellent friends to remind one of forgotten things and points of ignorance? Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’
On Jun 8, 2019, at 11:09 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:54 AM, Will Martin wrote: Note that {-be’} is the only suffix that can be used more than once in a Klingon verb, since it is the only true roving suffix,
jIQochqu'be'qu'.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jun 8, 2019, at 06:54, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Note that {-be’} is the only suffix that can be used more than once in a Klingon verb, since it is the only true roving suffix, and it specifically negates whatever it follows.
Isn’t {-qu'} also a “true rover”? TKD has the examples {pIHoHqu'vIpbe' / pIHoHvIpqu'be' / pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} to illustrate this. I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to use {-qu'} in more than one of those positions at the same time. I’ve often wondered why Klingon grammarians insist on calling {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} rovers. Were they true rovers at some earlier point in the language’s history? I can imagine something like *{pIHoHQo'vIp} meaning “we are afraid to refuse to kill you” or *{pIHoHvIpHa'} meaning “we are improperly afraid to kill you”, so it doesn’t seem totally crazy. Or is there some properly of {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} that they have in common with the true rovers? Semantically, they do seem to serve a similar role. With their prescribed positions, however, it does seem to me that {-Qo'} is meant to bind to the entire verbal phrase (excepting syntactic marker) and {-Ha'} is meant to bind to the verb root. Somewhat recently De'vID analyzed all canon uses of {-Ha'}. In his summary of his analysis, he pointed out that although TKD says only {-qu'} is allowed on a stative verb acting as an adjective, we have canon examples of both {-be'} and {-Ha'} being placed on adjective verbs as well. Only {-Qo'} is unattested in this position. Perhaps the actual rule is that only *rovers* are allowed to accompany adjective-verbs, and we just haven’t seen any examples of {-Qo'}. Or it’s something like “rovers except {-Qo'}”.
On the one hand, {-Ha’} and {-Qo’} are immovable rovers simply because they are. It’s just an arbitrary point of grammar in Klingon, similar to many arbitrary points of grammar in any other language. Meanwhile, I can see the logic behind these suffixes appearing as they do. {-Ha’} naturally applies to the verb root, essentially creating a kind of antonym, then modified by all the other suffixes to make the core sentence. Yes, there can be imagined cases where you might want to do otherwise, but generally speaking, {-Ha’} naturally applies to the root verb. {-Qo’} most typically applies to the entire action of the sentence. “Don’t” do whatever the whole sentence tells you, including all the affixes.” Again, you might be able to imagine a case different from this, but clearly the majority of cases fits this pattern. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’
On Jun 8, 2019, at 1:05 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Jun 8, 2019, at 06:54, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Note that {-be’} is the only suffix that can be used more than once in a Klingon verb, since it is the only true roving suffix, and it specifically negates whatever it follows.
Isn’t {-qu'} also a “true rover”? TKD has the examples {pIHoHqu'vIpbe' / pIHoHvIpqu'be' / pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} to illustrate this. I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to use {-qu'} in more than one of those positions at the same time.
I’ve often wondered why Klingon grammarians insist on calling {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} rovers. Were they true rovers at some earlier point in the language’s history? I can imagine something like *{pIHoHQo'vIp} meaning “we are afraid to refuse to kill you” or *{pIHoHvIpHa'} meaning “we are improperly afraid to kill you”, so it doesn’t seem totally crazy. Or is there some properly of {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} that they have in common with the true rovers? Semantically, they do seem to serve a similar role. With their prescribed positions, however, it does seem to me that {-Qo'} is meant to bind to the entire verbal phrase (excepting syntactic marker) and {-Ha'} is meant to bind to the verb root.
Somewhat recently De'vID analyzed all canon uses of {-Ha'}. In his summary of his analysis, he pointed out that although TKD says only {-qu'} is allowed on a stative verb acting as an adjective, we have canon examples of both {-be'} and {-Ha'} being placed on adjective verbs as well. Only {-Qo'} is unattested in this position. Perhaps the actual rule is that only *rovers* are allowed to accompany adjective-verbs, and we just haven’t seen any examples of {-Qo'}. Or it’s something like “rovers except {-Qo'}”. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 12:05 mayqel qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand the arguments so far, but there is still something I don't understand.
First, lets remember what was written, in the leaflet of qep'a' 2017:
"Finally... a note about -Qo'. There's apparently been some confusion about -be' and -Qo' in imperatives. This is no doubt because this was not explained as clearly as it could have been in the Dictionary. The rule says -Qo' "is used in imperatives" and that -Qo' is "the imperative counterpart to -be'." The rule isn't that -be' can't appear anywhere in an imperative construction; it's that -be' can't be used to mean "don't!" - use -Qo' for that. In other words, -Qo' is used (and -be' is not) to indicate a negative command, when the meaning of the command is "don't do X!" X may contain a -be', but if the command is to not do X, you still need -Qo' at the end (if you're saying "don't do X" and not "do not-X")".
(I copied the above by hand from the leaflet, so double-check with it for possible errors).
taH: --- tagh --- {choleghbe'moH} means "you cause me to not see." If you wanted make this a command ("Cause me to not see!"), it would be {HIleghbe'moH}. That's fine. I'm telling you to do something ("cause me to not see") not to not do something. It doesn't violate the rule about using {-Qo'} instead of {-be'} because it's not a negative command. The corresponding negative command would be {HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't cause me to not see!" When {-Qo'} is used in a non-imperative, it's straightforward: {choleghbe'moHQo'} "you refuse to cause me to not see." --- rIn --- QIjchu' 'e' vIHar. -- De'vID
Thank you De'vID for posting this Ca'Non text. It's the first time I see it. It must have been clipped from the 2017 qep'a' leaflet, because the leaflet which I have includes only the excerpt I posted in my original message. ~ m. qunen'oS
On 6/7/2019 3:33 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
However, the lajQo', has been given as "reject". So, this means that saying HIlajvIpQo' means/can mean too "be afraid to reject me".
This is a case of TKD giving you the definition of a Klingon verb plus suffix because someone looking up the English word needs something to find. It's not that **lajQo'** has some special meaning that couldn't be discerned by analyzing **laj + -Qo';** it's that the way to express rejection is by saying you refuse to accept or by commanding not to accept. When you get tripped up by **lajQo'** = *reject,* you show that you're not thinking in Klingon. If you know what **laj** means and you know what **-Qo'** means, then you know what **lajQo'** means. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 17:16 SuStel, <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/7/2019 3:33 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
However, the lajQo', has been given as "reject". So, this means that saying HIlajvIpQo' means/can mean too "be afraid to reject me".
This is a case of TKD giving you the definition of a Klingon verb plus suffix because someone looking up the English word needs something to find.
KGT-Daq nargh mu'vam. Qe' tIgh bop. Soj'e' neHbogh SopwI' qawnIS jabwI'. qawHa'chugh, *lajQo'* 'e' wIvlaH SopwI'. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin