to roar in crescendo with verbs
Yesterday I wanted to say "no one really changes while getting older; with the passage of time people just display more what they really are". But when I came to the "with the passage of time people just display more what they really are", the problem was that since I was writing this on twitter, there was a character limit, so I needed to keep it short. And it was then when the "roar in crescendo" Ca'Non came to mind: {beyHom bey bey'a' jachtaH}; so I wrote: qanchoHtaHvIS nuv, choHbe'; not choHbej vay'. 'a qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu' So here comes the question.. Would the {qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu'} be appropriate for this purpose? I can't see anything grammatically wrong with it. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 2/17/2022 7:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Yesterday I wanted to say "no one really changes while getting older; with the passage of time people just display more what they really are".
But when I came to the "with the passage of time people just display more what they really are", the problem was that since I was writing this on twitter, there was a character limit, so I needed to keep it short.
And it was then when the "roar in crescendo" Ca'Non came to mind: {beyHom bey bey'a' jachtaH}; so I wrote:
qanchoHtaHvIS nuv, choHbe'; not choHbej vay'. 'a qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu'
Would the {qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu'} be appropriate for this purpose? I can't see anything grammatically wrong with it.
With verbs I would take them as a poetic flourish rather than grammatically allowed. I wouldn't have any problem with someone stacking verbs this way in speech, but I wouldn't necessarily call it grammatical. You could put periods after each verb to make it grammatical, but it's all supposed to be one idea, so that isn't satisfactory. You could put semi-colons after each verb to make it grammatical, which would be better. But I wouldn't bother if my audience wasn't sensitive to grammar. I do, however, disagree that *'agh, 'aghqu', 'aghchu'* represents a linear increase in the same way that *beyHom, bey, bey'a'* does. *'agh* means /reveal//;**/*'aghqu'* means something like /expose,/ and *'aghchu'* means /reveal perfectly /(that is, definitely without anything remaining hidden). I don't see these as simple degrees. You'd pretty much get the sense of this by saying *qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna' 'aghtaH.* To /continuously reveal/ implies more and more getting revealed, which is the meaning you're after, and it's shorter to boot. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
qanchoHtaHvIS nuv, choHbe'; not choHbej vay'. 'a qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu' SuStel: I wouldn't have any problem with someone stacking verbs this way in speech, but I wouldn't necessarily call it grammatical
I'm afraid I can't understand this. In the {DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu'} sentence, the {DI'onmeyna'Daj} is the object of the {'agh}, and the subject of {'agh} is an omitted {vay'}. Can't the following verbs {'aghqu'}/{'aghchu'} have an omitted {DI'onmeyna'Daj}/{vay'} as object/subject? I understand the reasoning why just writing {qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna' 'aghtaH} is better, but I can't understand why the original sentence could be considered ungrammatical. I'm wondering whether there's something I'm missing regarding omitting subjects/objects. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
See my notes on punctuation. -------- Original message --------From: mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Date: 2/18/22 7:03 AM (GMT-05:00) To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] to roar in crescendo with verbs jIH:> qanchoHtaHvIS nuv, choHbe'; not choHbej vay'. > 'a qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu'SuStel:> I wouldn't have any problem with someone stacking verbs> this way in speech, but I wouldn't necessarily call it grammaticalI'm afraid I can't understand this.In the {DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu'} sentence, the {DI'onmeyna'Daj} is the object of the {'agh}, and the subject of {'agh} is an omitted {vay'}. Can't the following verbs {'aghqu'}/{'aghchu'} have an omitted {DI'onmeyna'Daj}/{vay'} as object/subject?I understand the reasoning why just writing {qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna' 'aghtaH} is better, but I can't understand why the original sentence could be considered ungrammatical. I'm wondering whether there's something I'm missing regarding omitting subjects/objects.-- Dana'anhttps://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
See my notes on punctuation. -------- Original message --------From: mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Date: 2/18/22 7:03 AM (GMT-05:00) To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] to roar in crescendo with verbs jIH:> qanchoHtaHvIS nuv, choHbe'; not choHbej vay'. > 'a qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu'SuStel:> I wouldn't have any problem with someone stacking verbs> this way in speech, but I wouldn't necessarily call it grammaticalI'm afraid I can't understand this.In the {DI'onmeyna'Daj 'agh 'aghqu' 'aghchu'} sentence, the {DI'onmeyna'Daj} is the object of the {'agh}, and the subject of {'agh} is an omitted {vay'}. Can't the following verbs {'aghqu'}/{'aghchu'} have an omitted {DI'onmeyna'Daj}/{vay'} as object/subject?I understand the reasoning why just writing {qaStaHvIS yInDaj DISmey, DI'onmeyna' 'aghtaH} is better, but I can't understand why the original sentence could be considered ungrammatical. I'm wondering whether there's something I'm missing regarding omitting subjects/objects.-- Dana'anhttps://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel