Dr. Okrand didn't clarify when {net X} would be used as opposed to {'e' Xlu'}, but acknowledged that multiple uses of {-lu'} in a complex sentence refer back to the same indefinite subject. In {Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQqu'Hegh wanI'}, the subject of {Hegh} is the same as the subject of {mobbe'}. (There are several other examples in canon, but this sentence happens to appear in the paq'batlh.) This seems to explain some instances of {'e' Xlu'} that we've seen, namely, {yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'}, {yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'}, and {DIvI' rojmab qep ghanglu' 'e' nIDlu'}. It would also seem to imply that {vImuHlu' net wuqHa'} means the person who commuted the execution is not the same as the person who performs the execution, whereas {vImuHlu' 'e' wuqHa'lu'} would imply they're the same person. But it does not explain {Qang QanmeH yan 'ISletlh Damuv 'e' wIvlu'} (rather than {net wIv}) or {SIS 'e' 'aqlu'} (rather than {SIS net 'aq}). -- De'vID
Does this mean we can construct similar sentences ourselves (i.e. Xlu' 'e' Ylu'), when the indefinite subject is the same? Or is all this just an explanation 'oqranD gave for some "special cases", meaning that we (still) shouldn't write this way? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 06:48, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Does this mean we can construct similar sentences ourselves (i.e. Xlu' 'e' Ylu'), when the indefinite subject is the same?
TKD 6.2.5 says: <When the verb of the second sentence has a third-person subject (that is, the pronominal prefix is 0) but the intended meaning is "one" or "someone", rather than "he", "she", "it", or "they", {net} is used instead of {'e'}.> What it's saying here is that using {net} instead of {'e'} is done in a particular situation, but it doesn't say that it's necessarily always done in this situation. Remember the introduction to TKD: <The grammatical sketch is intended to be an outline of Klingon grammar, not a complete description.> We've known for a long time that {'e' Xlu'} was possible based on TKW. Some people thought this was an error. This latest information just tells us what's going on. Or is all this just an explanation 'oqranD gave for some "special cases",
meaning that we (still) shouldn't write this way?
These are the examples we have of {'e' Xlu'}. The first two are from TKW and the third is from Klingon Monopoly. yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'. - The victory must be earned by the one who achieves it. yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'. - The survival must be earned by the one who survives. DIvI' rojmab qep ghanglu' 'e' nIDlu', 'ach taH qep. - One tries to end the peace talks. (This can't be interpreted as someone trying to get someone else to end the peace talks. The trier is the ender.) What the latest information says is that these sentences are part of a larger pattern that includes these: batlhHa' vanglu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu'. - The one who acts dishonourably is the one who does not achieve honour. Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQqu' Hegh wanI'. - The one who dies is the one who is not alone. noH QapmeH wo' Qaw'lu'chugh yay chavbe'lu' 'ej wo' choqmeH may' DoHlu'chugh lujbe'lu'. - The one who destroys an empire is the one who doesn't achieve victory, the one who retreats is the one who doesn't lose. pujwI' HIvlu'chugh quvbe'lu'. - If one attacks the weak, the same one does not achieve honour. 'oy'be'lu'chugh Qapbe'lu'. - One does not succeed if the same one does not experience pain. So the sentences with {'e' Xlu'} were not a mistake (i.e., cases where Dr. Okrand forgot about {net}), but were written that way for a reason, one which we had suspected but hadn't confirmed. {'e' Xlu'} differs in meaning from {net X} and would be used in some circumstances. If one imagines writing {HoHlu' 'e' jallu'chugh}, it would mean "if one imagines that one were killed" (which means something like "if you, the listener, were killed"), whereas {HoHlu' net jalchugh} would mean "if one imagines that someone (possibly someone else) were killed". -- De'vID
Thank you De'vID for taking the time to explain all this. So, as I understand it (and if my understanding is correct..) it's open season on {Xlu' 'e' Ylu'}. I can write for instance: tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh.. if someone achieves that he perfectly learns klingon.. Meaning that the same (unspecified) person that learns klingon perfectly is the person doing the achieving. On the other hand, if I want to say "if someone unspecified achieves that someone else (unspecified as well) learns Klingon perfectly..", then I'll write: tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' net chavchugh.. if someone achieves that he perfectly learns klingon.. If I understand things wrong, or if we're (still) not allowed to use {Xlu' 'e' Ylu'}, then please do tell me because I'm about to start {Xlu' 'e' Ylu'}ing as if there's no tomorrow. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
Le sam. 11 juin 2022 à 11:17, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> a écrit :
I can write for instance:
tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh.. if someone achieves that he perfectly learns klingon..
Meaning that the same (unspecified) person that learns klingon perfectly is the person doing the achieving.
Right. "If one achieves learning Klingon perfectly..." The learner is the achiever. On the other hand, if I want to say "if someone unspecified achieves that
someone else (unspecified as well) learns Klingon perfectly..", then I'll write:
tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' net chavchugh.. if someone achieves that he perfectly learns klingon..
"If it is achieved that someone learns Klingon perfectly..." The difference is whether the achievement is attributed to the learner. Suppose I'm training a class of Federation cadets to be diplomats, linguists, or spies, and I'm talking what an achievement it would be if someone learns Klingon perfectly. {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh} would mean that the achievement is associated with the unspecified someone who learned Klingon perfectly. {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu' net chavchugh} would mean that the achievement is general. (It's an achievement by the class, by the Federation, or whatever. The achiever is unstated. The goal of having someone learn Klingon perfectly is just achieved.) If I understand things wrong, or if we're (still) not allowed to use {Xlu'
'e' Ylu'}, then please do tell me because I'm about to start {Xlu' 'e' Ylu'}ing as if there's no tomorrow.
We now have an explanation of a grammatical construction that we've observed before, but wasn't clearly explained. If context calls for it, go ahead and construct similar sentences. Also, this isn't restricted to {Xlu' 'e' Ylu'}, but applies to complex sentences of other types as well (e.g., with type 9 verb suffixes). For example, {Suvlu'taHvIS Doy'choHbe'lu'} "one does not become tired while (one is) fighting". It seems useful to understand how such constructions work. -- De'vID
First, you should recognize that {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu’chu’ ‘e’ chavlu’chugh…} could have perhaps more simply been expressed as {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu’chu’ta’chugh}. But that’s a distraction. Sorry. While we are celebrating new potential complexity, since that seems to be the whole point of this list much of the time, let’s look closer at something I haven’t seen anyone mention yet: SAO is actually SAOOAS. One sentence is the object of another sentence. When we were introduced to this construction, both sentences were simple main clauses. The larger new thing here (than {Xlu’ ‘e’ Ylu’} is the idea that it’s fine for the second sentence to be a dependent clause of yet another main clause. What we unconsciously did here was make sure that the dependent clause precedes the main clause, so we don’t have yet another clause between the second sentence and its object, making the string of words harder to parse. Good: {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu’chu’ ‘e’ chavlu’chugh QuchchoH Hoch} Not so good, even if it is grammatically legal: {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu’chu’ QuchchoH Hoch ‘e’ chavlu’chugh} What if we have a main clause with a sentence as object, and that main clause has a dependent clause in addition to the sentence as object? This implies that the dependent clause should follow the main clause for clarity as to which clause the object is the object of. While pretending to be language teachers, our spies blocked our enemies’ spies from perfectly learning the Klingon language in order to prepare to steal all our important secrets. {Hoch peghmeymaj potlh nIHrupmeH jaghma' ghoqwI’pu’ tlhIngan Hol lughojchu’ ‘e’ bot ghoqwI’pu'ma’ Hol ghojwI’pu’ ghettaHvIS.} Okay, but what if that dependent clause on the second sentence whose main clause has another sentence as object has a {-meH} clause that must precede the main clause? In order to protect all our important secrets, our spies pretended to teach our enemies’ spies the Klingon language. jaghwI’pu’ ghoqwI’pu’vaD tlhIngan Hol lughojmoH ghoqwI’pu’maj Hoch peghmeymaj potlh QanmeH ‘e’ lughet ghoqwI’pu’maj. Likely, it’s valid and one can parse it, and perhaps can even develop it further, but mostly as an exercise for coming up with the Klingon equivalent of James Joycean prose. It requires a large mental stack of stuff to remember while you read stuff that goes in another direction, before coming back to piece the larger parts together. I like it not. I’m rusty, but I can still write this stuff (even as I’m sure my errors will be celebrated). pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 11, 2022, at 7:41 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Le sam. 11 juin 2022 à 11:17, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> a écrit : I can write for instance:
tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh.. if someone achieves that he perfectly learns klingon..
Meaning that the same (unspecified) person that learns klingon perfectly is the person doing the achieving.
Right. "If one achieves learning Klingon perfectly..." The learner is the achiever.
On the other hand, if I want to say "if someone unspecified achieves that someone else (unspecified as well) learns Klingon perfectly..", then I'll write:
tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' net chavchugh.. if someone achieves that he perfectly learns klingon..
"If it is achieved that someone learns Klingon perfectly..."
The difference is whether the achievement is attributed to the learner.
Suppose I'm training a class of Federation cadets to be diplomats, linguists, or spies, and I'm talking what an achievement it would be if someone learns Klingon perfectly. {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh} would mean that the achievement is associated with the unspecified someone who learned Klingon perfectly. {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu' net chavchugh} would mean that the achievement is general. (It's an achievement by the class, by the Federation, or whatever. The achiever is unstated. The goal of having someone learn Klingon perfectly is just achieved.)
If I understand things wrong, or if we're (still) not allowed to use {Xlu' 'e' Ylu'}, then please do tell me because I'm about to start {Xlu' 'e' Ylu'}ing as if there's no tomorrow.
We now have an explanation of a grammatical construction that we've observed before, but wasn't clearly explained. If context calls for it, go ahead and construct similar sentences.
Also, this isn't restricted to {Xlu' 'e' Ylu'}, but applies to complex sentences of other types as well (e.g., with type 9 verb suffixes). For example, {Suvlu'taHvIS Doy'choHbe'lu'} "one does not become tired while (one is) fighting". It seems useful to understand how such constructions work.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Le sam. 11 juin 2022 à 15:41, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> a écrit :
While we are celebrating new potential complexity, since that seems to be the whole point of this list much of the time,
The new information doesn't add any potential complexity which wasn't there before. It just explains a bunch of sentences that we already had in canon. Good:
{tlhIngan Hol ghojlu’chu’ ‘e’ chavlu’chugh QuchchoH Hoch}
Not so good, even if it is grammatically legal: {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu’chu’ QuchchoH Hoch ‘e’ chavlu’chugh}
It might be grammatically legal, but it doesn't have the same meaning. This sentence means "one learns Klingon perfectly, if everyone becoming happy is achieved". The sentence I think you had intended would be: {QuchchoH Hoch, tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh} -- De'vID
What you’ve written is not grammatically valid. You can’t put a Sentence As Object in the middle of a larger sentence. The {-‘e’} always refers back to a preceding sentence, not to an encapsulated one. One is forced to have the {-‘e’} skip back to the previous sentence, not place the previous sentence into the middle of the larger sentence. Like I said, it’s ugly. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 11, 2022, at 3:43 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Le sam. 11 juin 2022 à 15:41, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com <mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>> a écrit : While we are celebrating new potential complexity, since that seems to be the whole point of this list much of the time,
The new information doesn't add any potential complexity which wasn't there before. It just explains a bunch of sentences that we already had in canon.
Good: {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu’chu’ ‘e’ chavlu’chugh QuchchoH Hoch}
Not so good, even if it is grammatically legal: {tlhIngan Hol ghojlu’chu’ QuchchoH Hoch ‘e’ chavlu’chugh}
It might be grammatically legal, but it doesn't have the same meaning. This sentence means "one learns Klingon perfectly, if everyone becoming happy is achieved".
The sentence I think you had intended would be: {QuchchoH Hoch, tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh}
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/12/2022 8:44 AM, Will Martin wrote:
What you’ve written is not grammatically valid. You can’t put a Sentence As Object in the middle of a larger sentence. The {-‘e’} always refers back to a preceding sentence, not to an encapsulated one. One is forced to have the {-‘e’} skip back to the previous sentence, not place the previous sentence into the middle of the larger sentence. Like I said, it’s ugly.
On Jun 11, 2022, at 3:43 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: {QuchchoH Hoch, tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh}
This sentence is perfectly grammatical. It consists of a main clause (*QuchchoH Hoch*/everybody becomes happy/) and a subordinate clause (*tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh*/if one achieves learning Klingon perfectly/). The subordinate clause in turn consists of a subordinated clause (*'e' chavlu'chugh*/if one achieves that/) whose object pronoun's antecedent (*tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu'*/one learns Klingon perfectly/) comes just before it. That's the rule: the antecedent of *'e'* or *net* comes immediately before the clause containing that object. *'e'* must refer to the previous independent clause, not the phrase that immediately follows the previous full stop. Again, when Okrand says "sentence" in TKD, this must be read as "verbal clause." Okrand was not publishing a book as specific as you'd like it to be. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I’m quite surprised that we can place a Sentence As Object between a Main Clause and its dependent clause. I saw nothing in TKD that ever suggested such a thing. We’ve seen an example, {‘e’ neHbe’ vav’oy}? where the {‘e’} referred to an entire paragraph preceding the statement; something someone else said. So, we’ve seen {‘e’} stretch back to refer to context. I’ve never seen it encapsulate a clause as object to within the boundary of a larger sentence. I really thing that’s a remarkable stretch from anything we’ve seen. I consider that to be remarkable to consider that justified. Of course, I’ve been wrong before. I just don’t feel like I’ve been proven wrong here quite yet. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 12, 2022, at 10:00 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/12/2022 8:44 AM, Will Martin wrote:
What you’ve written is not grammatically valid. You can’t put a Sentence As Object in the middle of a larger sentence. The {-‘e’} always refers back to a preceding sentence, not to an encapsulated one. One is forced to have the {-‘e’} skip back to the previous sentence, not place the previous sentence into the middle of the larger sentence. Like I said, it’s ugly.
On Jun 11, 2022, at 3:43 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com <mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>> wrote: {QuchchoH Hoch, tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh} This sentence is perfectly grammatical. It consists of a main clause (QuchchoH Hoch everybody becomes happy) and a subordinate clause (tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' 'e' chavlu'chugh if one achieves learning Klingon perfectly). The subordinate clause in turn consists of a subordinated clause ('e' chavlu'chugh if one achieves that) whose object pronoun's antecedent (tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'chu' one learns Klingon perfectly) comes just before it. That's the rule: the antecedent of 'e' or net comes immediately before the clause containing that object.
'e' must refer to the previous independent clause, not the phrase that immediately follows the previous full stop. Again, when Okrand says "sentence" in TKD, this must be read as "verbal clause." Okrand was not publishing a book as specific as you'd like it to be.
-- 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 Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 01:49, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m quite surprised that we can place a Sentence As Object between a Main Clause and its dependent clause. I saw nothing in TKD that ever suggested such a thing.
We’ve seen an example, {‘e’ neHbe’ vav’oy}? where the {‘e’} referred to an entire paragraph preceding the statement; something someone else said. So, we’ve seen {‘e’} stretch back to refer to context. I’ve never seen it encapsulate a clause as object to within the boundary of a larger sentence. I really thing that’s a remarkable stretch from anything we’ve seen. I consider that to be remarkable to consider that justified.
{bIQapqu'meH tar DaSop 'e' DatIvnIS} "To really succeed, you must enjoy eating poison" (TKW p.73) The main clause here is {'e' DatIvnIS}. The subordinate clause is {bIQapqu'meH}. The sentence-as-object {tar DaSop} sits between them. -- De'vID
qatlho’. choponchu’ta’. That was exactly what I was looking for. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 12, 2022, at 8:10 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 01:49, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com <mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>> wrote: I’m quite surprised that we can place a Sentence As Object between a Main Clause and its dependent clause. I saw nothing in TKD that ever suggested such a thing.
We’ve seen an example, {‘e’ neHbe’ vav’oy}? where the {‘e’} referred to an entire paragraph preceding the statement; something someone else said. So, we’ve seen {‘e’} stretch back to refer to context. I’ve never seen it encapsulate a clause as object to within the boundary of a larger sentence. I really thing that’s a remarkable stretch from anything we’ve seen. I consider that to be remarkable to consider that justified.
{bIQapqu'meH tar DaSop 'e' DatIvnIS} "To really succeed, you must enjoy eating poison" (TKW p.73)
The main clause here is {'e' DatIvnIS}. The subordinate clause is {bIQapqu'meH}. The sentence-as-object {tar DaSop} sits between them.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/11/2022 9:41 AM, Will Martin wrote:
While we are celebrating new potential complexity, since that seems to be the whole point of this list much of the time, let’s look closer at something I haven’t seen anyone mention yet:
SAO is actually SAOOAS. One sentence is the object of another sentence. When we were introduced to this construction, both sentences were simple main clauses. The larger new thing here (than {Xlu’ ‘e’ Ylu’} is the idea that it’s fine for the second sentence to be a dependent clause of yet another main clause.
That's not new. *Ha'DIbaH DaSop 'e' DaHechbe'chugh yIHoHQo'* was in /The Klingon Way./ He later gave us the irrealis construction *net jalchugh.* It's probably been done elsewhere. Virtually everywhere Okrand says "sentence" in TKD, he actually means "verbal clause." This is demonstrated often, including the fact that you can use "sentence" conjunctions between subordinate clauses. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 08:58, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
These are the examples we have of {'e' Xlu'}. The first two are from TKW and the third is from Klingon Monopoly.
yay chavlu' 'e' bajnISlu'. - The victory must be earned by the one who achieves it. yInlu'taH 'e' bajnISlu'. - The survival must be earned by the one who survives. DIvI' rojmab qep ghanglu' 'e' nIDlu', 'ach taH qep. - One tries to end the peace talks. (This can't be interpreted as someone trying to get someone else to end the peace talks. The trier is the ender.)
What the latest information says is that these sentences are part of a larger pattern that includes these:
batlhHa' vanglu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu'. - The one who acts dishonourably is the one who does not achieve honour. Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQqu' Hegh wanI'. - The one who dies is the one who is not alone. noH QapmeH wo' Qaw'lu'chugh yay chavbe'lu' 'ej wo' choqmeH may' DoHlu'chugh lujbe'lu'. - The one who destroys an empire is the one who doesn't achieve victory, the one who retreats is the one who doesn't lose. pujwI' HIvlu'chugh quvbe'lu'. - If one attacks the weak, the same one does not achieve honour. 'oy'be'lu'chugh Qapbe'lu'. - One does not succeed if the same one does not experience pain.
Oh, I just also realised: this new information also explains why it's {batlh Heghlu'chugh noDnISbe' vay'} and not {batlh Heghlu'chugh noDnISbe'lu'}. If we didn't know that the two instances of {-lu'} refer back to the same indefinite subject in the latter sentence, we might ask why it isn't {noDnISbe'lu'} since it apparently means the same thing as {noDnISbe' vay'}. With this new knowledge, it's obvious: the one who dies can't be the one who takes (or does not need to take) revenge! It's kind of surprising that this sentence was published in TKW (1996), and its grammar wasn't fully understood (or explained) until now! (Or is the fact that multiple uses of {-lu'} in a complex sentence refer back to the same indefinite subject known information that I've missed? I was surprised to learn it.) I wonder how many hidden rules there are in canon sentences which are clear in retrospect? (I guess that {-taHjaj} being allowed would be another case, once we find out the circumstances under which {-taHjaj} is allowed...) -- De'vID
On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 8:29 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
(Or is the fact that multiple uses of {-lu'} in a complex sentence refer back to the same indefinite subject known information that I've missed? I was surprised to learn it.)
It wasn't actually "known information" until now, but it was discussed and accepted a very long time ago as a likely explanation for a bunch of KGT sentences. -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
D qunen'oS -
De'vID -
SuStel -
Will Martin