excuse me, but how the jay' does -'eghmoH actually work ?
mu'tlheghmey veb vIqon: jIyoH'eghmoH I cause myself to be brave jIQong'eghmoH I cause myself to sleep jIvang'eghmoH I cause myself to act ghaytan lugh mu'tlheghmeyvam vIqonta'bogh. ('a mujchugh, vaj jIHvaD ngoDvam SovmoHjaj vay'..) 'ej DaH mu'tlhegh veb vIqon je: quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan the romulans caused themselves to lack honor lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ? Qap'a' {-'eghmoH} lo'vam ? ~ Qa'yIn
On 9/17/2020 7:57 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan the romulans caused themselves to lack honor
lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ? Qap'a' {-'eghmoH} lo'vam ?
Is this not just a retread of the question of whether a reflexive verb can have an object? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Is this not just a retread of the question of whether a reflexive verb can have an object?
jISovbe'.. tameywIj ngo' vInuDpu', 'ej {-'eghmoH} lubopbogh 'op QIn vIleghpu'. 'a 'ovmay {-'eghmoH} je bopbogh pagh QIn vISamlaHpu'. vaj mu'tlhegh veb vIlaDtaHvIS: quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan the romulans caused themselves to lack honor 'ej mu'tlheghvammo' jISIvtaHvIS < lugh'a' ? muj'a' ? > jIjanglaHbe'.. ~ Qa'yIn
To get the discussion started, here's what I have in my notes: (st.k 11/1997): For example, there is an entry for "commit suicide" just in case anyone wants to look that word up; but the Klingon equivalent is simply {HoH'egh}, literally "kill oneself" ({HoH} "kill" plus Type 1 verb suffix {-'egh} "oneself") ... Maltz reports having heard both {quv'eghmoH} "he/she honors him/herself", which follows the expected order (verb-Type 1-Type 4: {quv} "be honored", {-'egh} "oneself", {-moH} "cause") as well as the weird {quvmoH'egh} .... (KGT 117): Generally, when a verb describing a state of being (for example, {tuj} [be hot]) is used in the imperative form, the suffixes {-'egh} (reflexive suffix) and {-moH} (cause) are used as well: {yItuj'eghmoH} (Heat yourself!—that is, "Cause yourself to be hot!"), {yItaD'eghmoH!} (Freeze yourself!--that is, "Cause yourself to be frozen!"). I know of one other example: muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB) Anyone know of any others? -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -----------------------------------Original Message----------------------------------- From: mayqel qunen'oS Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 6:57 AM mu'tlheghmey veb vIqon: jIyoH'eghmoH I cause myself to be brave jIQong'eghmoH I cause myself to sleep jIvang'eghmoH I cause myself to act ghaytan lugh mu'tlheghmeyvam vIqonta'bogh. ('a mujchugh, vaj jIHvaD ngoDvam SovmoHjaj vay'..) 'ej DaH mu'tlhegh veb vIqon je: quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan the romulans caused themselves to lack honor lugh'a' mu'tlheghvam ? Qap'a' {-'eghmoH} lo'vam ? ~ Qa'yIn
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 16:18, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
To get the discussion started, here's what I have in my notes:
(st.k 11/1997): For example, there is an entry for "commit suicide" just in case anyone wants to look that word up; but the Klingon equivalent is simply {HoH'egh}, literally "kill oneself" ({HoH} "kill" plus Type 1 verb suffix {-'egh} "oneself") ... Maltz reports having heard both {quv'eghmoH} "he/she honors him/herself", which follows the expected order (verb-Type 1-Type 4: {quv} "be honored", {-'egh} "oneself", {-moH} "cause") as well as the weird {quvmoH'egh} ....
(KGT 117): Generally, when a verb describing a state of being (for example, {tuj} [be hot]) is used in the imperative form, the suffixes {-'egh} (reflexive suffix) and {-moH} (cause) are used as well: {yItuj'eghmoH} (Heat yourself!—that is, "Cause yourself to be hot!"), {yItaD'eghmoH!} (Freeze yourself!--that is, "Cause yourself to be frozen!").
I know of one other example:
muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB)
FYI: This is on pages 158-159.
Anyone know of any others?
{jItach'eghmoH} - From Lieven's email to this mailing list dated June 9 of this year. It was explained that it would be used instead of {jItach} under some circumstances: --- begin quote --- You could use {jItach'eghmoH} if there were a particular struggle or effort or accomplishment or something like that involved, something that might prevent you from turning yourself over or that's making it particularly hard to do. --- end quote --- -- De'vID
qaStaHvIS QIn tlheghvam, jIHvaD qay'pu' wa': chay' {quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan} mu'tlhegh yajnISlu'. 'op rep ret, vay' Daj vIQubpu'. 'ej chaq jIHvaD mu'tlheghvam qay' QIjlaHchu' vay'vam. pelaD. HoH kill HoH'egh commit suicide (kill oneself) jIHoH'eghmoH I cause someone unspecified to commit suicide (I cause someone unspecified to kill himself) luHoH'eghmoH they cause him/her to commit suicide (they cause him/her to kill himself/herself) vaj.. quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan the romulans cause the honor to lack itself chaq QIjlaw'ghachvam 'oH mu'tlhegh wa'DIch QIjchu'ghach'e'. ~ Qa'yIn
On 9/18/2020 8:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
qaStaHvIS QIn tlheghvam, jIHvaD qay'pu' wa': chay' {quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan} mu'tlhegh yajnISlu'. 'op rep ret, vay' Daj vIQubpu'. 'ej chaq jIHvaD mu'tlheghvam qay' QIjlaHchu' vay'vam. pelaD.
HoH kill
Yes.
HoH'egh commit suicide (kill oneself)
Yup.
jIHoH'eghmoH I cause someone unspecified to commit suicide (I cause someone unspecified to kill himself)
Ummm... maybe? It's all well to suggest that suffixes in a *-moH* verb might apply to entities other than the ones they're supposed to according to the rules of TKD, but in this word there's not even a /hint/ that there's someone else involved. I don't think you can reliably say that this word means what you say it means, let alone go on to base a linguistic formula on it.
luHoH'eghmoH they cause him/her to commit suicide (they cause him/her to kill himself/herself)
This, at least, has the benefit of actually referencing multiple parties.
vaj..
quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan the romulans cause the honor to lack itself
chaq QIjlaw'ghachvam 'oH mu'tlhegh wa'DIch QIjchu'ghach'e'.
Eh. I'm not convinced. I'd rather reword than trust to this. Instead of *quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan,* I'd say *quvHa''eghmoHpu' romuluSnganpu'*/The Romulans dishonored themselves./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj, SuStel. De' DalInpu'bogh vIyaj, 'ej muponpu' QInlIj. 'a qaghelnIS; mu'tlheghvam veb yIlaD: "the romulans caused themselves to lack any other options". chay' mu'tlheghvam Damugh ? ~ Qa'yIn
On 9/18/2020 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
De' DalInpu'bogh vIyaj, 'ej muponpu' QInlIj. 'a qaghelnIS; mu'tlheghvam veb yIlaD:
"the romulans caused themselves to lack any other options".
chay' mu'tlheghvam Damugh ?
romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan.
hmm.. Daj, 'a qay'law' vay'; jatlh mu'tlhegh wa'DIch: "the romulans caused themselves to lack any other options". mu'tlheghvam wInuDjaj: wa' ghom tu'lu', 'op romuluSngan yugh ghomvam, 'ej vangmo' ghomvam romuluSnganpu', tagha' latlh DuHmey HutlhchoH ghomvam romuluSnganpu'. 'ej DaH {romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan} mu'tlhegh wInuDjaj: mu'tlheghvam vIlaDtaHvIS, cha' yajmeH DuH vItu': DuH wa': wa' romuluSngan ghom tu'lu'. DuH cha': cha' romuluSngan ghom tu'lu'. ghaytan qaSbogh DuH 'ang mu'tlheghvam ngaSbogh lut'e' 'e' vIyaj. 'a law'bogh yajmeH DuH vIjunmeH, bI'reS {-'eghmoH} lo' vIqelpu'. ~ Qa'yIn
ghomvam romuluSnganpu' = “This group’s Romulans” or “Romulans of this group”. This suggests that the group includes beings that are not Romulans, but you are exclusively referring to the members of the group who are Romulans. The larger population is the group. The smaller population is the Romulans in the group. romuluSngan ghomvam = “This group of Romulans” or “This Romulan group”. The larger population is the Romulans. You are speaking exclusively of the members of the larger Romulan population who are members of the group. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Sep 18, 2020, at 9:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan.
hmm.. Daj, 'a qay'law' vay';
jatlh mu'tlhegh wa'DIch: "the romulans caused themselves to lack any other options". mu'tlheghvam wInuDjaj: wa' ghom tu'lu', 'op romuluSngan yugh ghomvam, 'ej vangmo' ghomvam romuluSnganpu', tagha' latlh DuHmey HutlhchoH ghomvam romuluSnganpu'.
'ej DaH {romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan} mu'tlhegh wInuDjaj: mu'tlheghvam vIlaDtaHvIS, cha' yajmeH DuH vItu':
DuH wa': wa' romuluSngan ghom tu'lu'. DuH cha': cha' romuluSngan ghom tu'lu'.
ghaytan qaSbogh DuH 'ang mu'tlheghvam ngaSbogh lut'e' 'e' vIyaj. 'a law'bogh yajmeH DuH vIjunmeH, bI'reS {-'eghmoH} lo' vIqelpu'.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/18/2020 9:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan. hmm.. Daj, 'a qay'law' vay';
jatlh mu'tlhegh wa'DIch: "the romulans caused themselves to lack any other options". mu'tlheghvam wInuDjaj: wa' ghom tu'lu', 'op romuluSngan yugh ghomvam, 'ej vangmo' ghomvam romuluSnganpu', tagha' latlh DuHmey HutlhchoH ghomvam romuluSnganpu'.
*shrug* Could it be interpreted as two distinct groups of Romulans? In isolation, sure. In context, probably not. If you're talking about a story in which a group of Romulans did this, then did that, then squandered their remaining alternatives, if I say *romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan, *it's pretty clear that the first and last instance of the word refer to the same group. If you still can't get past that, you can add *-vam* to the second instance. Your use of *ghomvam romuluSnganpu'* doesn't make sense. Do you mean *romuluSngan ghomvam*/This group of Romulans?/
'ej DaH {romuluSnganpu'mo' latlh DuH luHutlh romuluSngan} mu'tlhegh wInuDjaj:
I believe you are misusing *-jaj.* It's not used to suggest a course of action; it's used to express a wish or desire. *DaH mu'tlhegh wInuDjaj* means /Now ma//y it be that we examine the sentence./ Instead, you should just use an indicative or imperative sentence. *DaH mu'tlhegh wInuD*/Now we examine the sentence/ (Cf. *DaH matlhutlh*/Let's go get a drink, Power Klingon/) or *DaH mu'tlhegh yInuD*/Now examine the sentence./
mu'tlheghvam vIlaDtaHvIS, cha' yajmeH DuH vItu':
DuH wa': wa' romuluSngan ghom tu'lu'. DuH cha': cha' romuluSngan ghom tu'lu'.
ghaytan qaSbogh DuH 'ang mu'tlheghvam ngaSbogh lut'e' 'e' vIyaj. 'a law'bogh yajmeH DuH vIjunmeH, bI'reS {-'eghmoH} lo' vIqelpu'.
I know you WANT to talk about *-'egh + -moH,* but I believe you've exhausted the available information. You can do it easily without an object: *jIquv'eghmoH*/I honor myself./ There is only slim evidence that you can do it with an object, and exactly how that works is unclear, assuming it's not an error in the first place. You are looking for a way to justify what you want it to mean rather than looking to see whether it actually means that. Having run out of evidence to examine, and finding that evidence to be insufficient to draw any conclusions, I advocate assuming that it DOESN'T work and translating according to that assumption. My translation follows that line of thought. If further evidence comes to light later, we can reevaluate. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
charghwI':
My habitual, unwelcome response is, “Yes, this probably breaks it, but even if it didn’t, there are other, far better ways of conveying the meaning you suggest.” Your habitual response is, “I don’t care about conveying the meaning. I’m exploring the limits of the grammar.”
hahaha ! bIlughchu' ! 'a charghwI', tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI' Hen SoHmo', pab'e' potlh vuDlIj, 'ej meqvammo' QInmeylIj vIlaD vIneH. vabDot maQochtaHvIS, QInmeylIj vIlaD vIneH. charghwI':
ghomvam romuluSnganpu' = “This group’s Romulans” or “Romulans of this group”. This suggests that the group includes beings that are not Romulans, but you are exclusively referring to the members of the group who are Romulans. The larger population is the group. The smaller population is the Romulans in the group.
hmm.. DuHvam vIqelpu'be', 'ej jIHvaD DuHvam Da'angpu'mo', jIbel. 'a QIn tlheghvam ngoQ'e' choH pagh. vabDot latlh nuvpu' ngaSchugh ghomvam, ghomvam romuluSnganpu' neH bop mu'tlhegh wa'DIch, 'ej vang romuluSnganpu'vam neH. pagh latlh romuluSngan ghom tu'lu'. ~ Qa'yIn
SuStel:
I believe you are misusing -jaj. It's not used to suggest a course of action; it's used to express a wish or desire. DaH mu'tlhegh wInuDjaj means Now may it be that we examine the sentence.
{-jaj} vIlo'taHvIS, "now may it be that we examine the sentence" jIjatlhpu' vIneH. chaq muSIghpu' 'elaDya' Hol.
Instead, you should just use an indicative or imperative sentence. DaH mu'tlhegh wInuD Now we examine the sentence (Cf. DaH matlhutlh Let's go get a drink, Power Klingon) or DaH mu'tlhegh yInuD Now examine the sentence.
bIlugh, nIvbej DuHvam Dachupbogh. meqvammo' DuHvam vIlo'choH. ~ Qa'yIn
On 9/18/2020 10:33 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
I believe you are misusing -jaj. It's not used to suggest a course of action; it's used to express a wish or desire. DaH mu'tlhegh wInuDjaj means Now may it be that we examine the sentence. {-jaj} vIlo'taHvIS, "now may it be that we examine the sentence" jIjatlhpu' vIneH. chaq muSIghpu' 'elaDya' Hol.
But you're not trying to express a hope that maybe you'll get to examine the sentence, which is what *-jaj* does. You're signalling to the reader that you are, in fact, about to examine the sentence. (One might suggest that a Klingon would not even go that far and would just start describing the sentence. I'm not going to suggest that: there are reasonable literary reasons to signal to a reader what the upcoming topic is going to be that have nothing to do with politeness or wheel-greasing. Similarly, a Klingon who is impressed with your business transactions can say *DaH matlhutlh* instead of wordlessly dragging you off to a bar without warning.) I think it's obvious that you have been influenced in this by another language. You say it's Greek; I'll tell you that English does exactly the same thing: /Now let's examine the sentence./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I think it's obvious that you have been influenced in this by another language. You say it's Greek; I'll tell you that English does exactly the same thing: Now let's examine the sentence.
teH ! 'ej vay' potlh tob wanI'vam; pIj, Holchaj wa'DIchmo', 'op quvyaH qab SIQ tlhIngan ghojwI'pu'. meqvammo', quvyaHmeyvam tlhojmeH 'ej Qaw'meH ghojwI'pu', roD tlhIngan Hol lulo'nIS. ngoQvam vIchavmeH je, naDev tlhIngan Hol neH vIlo'choHpu'. jIHvaD QaghwIj Da'angpu'mo', jIbel 'ej qatlho', SuStel, 'ej reH jIHvaD QaghwIj tI'ang vIneHchu'. ~ Qa'yIn
You start to lose me at {jIHoH’eghmoH} = “I cause someone unspecified to commit suicide.” This looks like a grammatical error, unless you are trying to say, “I cause myself to kill myself,” which seems like an obvious, unnecessary extension of “I killed myself/I will kill myself/I am killing myself.” Nothing actually causes suicide except for the personal choice to commit the act. An external influence might suggest suicide as a rational choice, but the choice itself is the cause, and the person committing suicide is always the one making that choice. You could have less confusingly said, {vay’ vIHoH’eghmoH} or perhaps more clearly said, {HoH’eghlu’ ‘e’ vIqaSmoH}. I really think you are overloading a grammatical construction, when someone speaking the language would have spilled over to a different construction. That’s what I see as the most common problem when linguists (professional or amateur) start overloading grammatical constructions like this. If you actually wanted to say something, you might have started out parsing something with a particular grammatical form, then realized that it wasn’t working very well and shift to something else, but your interest isn’t in conveying meaning. Your interest is in how much weight a specific grammatical construction can take before it breaks. My habitual, unwelcome response is, “Yes, this probably breaks it, but even if it didn’t, there are other, far better ways of conveying the meaning you suggest.” Your habitual response is, “I don’t care about conveying the meaning. I’m exploring the limits of the grammar.” So, we go through this, yet again. And no, honor can’t lack itself. Honor is a trait of living beings. Those beings can have or lack honor, but honor itself can neither have nor lack anything, especially itself. Honor is like light. A lamp can have light, or it can lack light. Light cannot have light. Light cannot lack light. Romulans can lack honor, but they cannot cause honor to lack honor. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Sep 18, 2020, at 8:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
qaStaHvIS QIn tlheghvam, jIHvaD qay'pu' wa': chay' {quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan} mu'tlhegh yajnISlu'. 'op rep ret, vay' Daj vIQubpu'. 'ej chaq jIHvaD mu'tlheghvam qay' QIjlaHchu' vay'vam. pelaD.
HoH kill
HoH'egh commit suicide (kill oneself)
jIHoH'eghmoH I cause someone unspecified to commit suicide (I cause someone unspecified to kill himself)
luHoH'eghmoH they cause him/her to commit suicide (they cause him/her to kill himself/herself)
vaj..
quv luHutlh'eghmoHpu' romuluSngan the romulans cause the honor to lack itself
chaq QIjlaw'ghachvam 'oH mu'tlhegh wa'DIch QIjchu'ghach'e'.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin