On 1/6/2020 9:01 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

I found the sentence, which led me to creating this thread.

Recently, I wrote:

tIq 'oH nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch mung'e'

Translated in the "usual" way, then it means: "each origin which exits the mouth is the heart".

Which doesn't make sense.

But there's the "alternate" translation, which goes: "the origin of everything which exits the mouth is the heart".

Is this alternate translation possible ?

A relative clause is a noun phrase. It stands in for a noun. Work out what constitutes the clause, then you'll have your answer. Is the clause *nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch*/everything which un-enters the mouth; the mouth which everything un-enters/ or *nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch mung'e'*/each origin which un-enters the mouth/? In this sentence, it could be either. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/6/2020 9:50 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

SuStel:

...

Is the clause nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch everything which un-enters the mouth; the mouth which everything un-enters or nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch mung'e' each origin which un-enters the mouth? In this sentence, it could be either.

Can't it be "the origin of everything which un-enters the mouth" ?

Then the relative clause would be *nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch* /everything which un-enters the mouth,/ and you'd take that noun phrase and use it to modify *mung,* which is not part of the relative clause. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/6/2020 10:18 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

SuStel:

...

Then the relative clause would be nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch everything which un- enters the mouth, and you'd take that noun phrase and use it to modify mung, which is not part of the relative clause.

I'm afraid I'm still confused..

Lets approach this differently, without talking about relative clauses, since grammar terms confuse me.

We have the sentence:

{tIq 'oH nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch mung'e'}

Would you agree, that one possible translation is: "the origin of everything which exits the mouth is the heart" ?

Or would you say, that the *only* possible translation is: "each origin which exits the mouth is the heart" ?

Or is it, that both translations are possible ?

Lots of translations are possible. If you want to understand why, you MUST pay attention to the relative clause. Do a substitution: where the clause appears, replace it with X. You have many possibilities: *tIq 'oH X*     (where X = *nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch mung'e'*) *tIq 'oH X mung'e'*     (where X = *nuj 'elHa'bogh Hoch*) *tIq 'oH nuj X *    (where X = *'elHa'bogh Hoch mung'e'*) *tIq 'oH nuj X mung'e' *    (where X = *'elHa'bogh Hoch*) *tIq 'oH X Hoch mung'e' *    (where X = *nuj 'elHa'bogh*) Work out what each of those relative clauses mean, then plug those meanings into the complete sentence. And remember that *Hoch mung* might be translated /each origin/ or /origin of everything./ That's a lot of possible translations. Maybe come up with something less vague. *nuj mejchugh vay', tIq 'oH vay'vetlh mung'e'*/If something leaves the mouth, its origin is the heart./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/6/2020 10:51 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

I was under the impression that {Hoch} could mean "everything" only when used on its own, as for instance in {Hoch vor Dargh wIb}.

My misconception was, that in Hoch-noun constructions, {Hoch} could *only* mean, "each noun", or "all nouns" depending on the presence of {-pu'}/{-mey'} or not.

I dunno, maybe these are true. I don't think we've ever seen *Hoch X* mean anything other than /each X,/ but there's also no rule against it meaning the more general /X of everything./ Lacking anything concrete, I concede that they are possible, if not definite. It's also the reason I suggest not overloading the use of *Hoch* when we don't know everything about it. Stick to what is known. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/6/2020 1:26 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:

On Jan 6, 2020, at 11:00 AM, SuStel<sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

...

I don't think we've ever seen Hoch X mean anything other than each X,... I lack the time to seek it out using my iPad, but I recall something Marc Okrand said about fax machines and telephones, where {Hoch nav HablI'} was potentially ambiguous. It could mean “each fax machine” or “everyone’s fax machine (i.e. the general-use one)”. I hope someone can give a better reference to the discussion.

Here it is: http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-06-holqed-05-2-c.txt Okrand says that *Hoch nav HablI'* works for /everyone's fax machine,/ but it's problematical because it could be interpreted as /all (the) fax machines/.* He offers *le'be'* /be unexceptional, nonspecific /as an alternative that cannot be misinterpreted this way. * Both this text and the information about *Hoch X* vs. *Hoch Xmey* were revealed in the same issue of /HolQeD/ in June 1996. Since *Hoch nav HablI'* means /each fax machine/ and not /all fax machines,/ I can't tell whether this is an error or he just hadn't worked out the difference yet. So yes, *Hoch* can be used as a normal noun in a noun-noun construction and not be interpreted as /all/each X./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/6/2020 10:25 AM, Will Martin wrote:

Answering a question different than you asked, I’d translate the English, “The origin of everything which exits the mouth is the heart,” into the Klingon:

Hoch mu’ luwIv tIq.

It fulfills the Klingon aversion to being “vague, wittering and indecisive”.

That is an aversion you made up. No language has a tolerance for being vague, wittering, and indecisive. No, not even English. People who don't use language well may be vague, wittering, and indecisive, and Klingons who don't use Klingon well may be vague, wittering, and indecisive. Avoidance to this is not built into Klingon; good style avoids this, in any language.

It doesn’t wander through a pile of extra words.

It also doesn't say what the English original says. It might do as a substitute in the right circumstances, but it means something different. There are closer Klingon translations that also aren't ambiguous or confusing.

Meanwhile, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve noticed that I am more often happy when I think of something to say and stop myself from saying it, than I am when I think of something to say and say it. (I’m sure I would have been happier if I hadn’t written this message and thus had avoided dealing with responses to it, for instance. Notice that I don’t write to this list NEARLY as often as I once did.) Essentially, my heart stops my words, which the mind has chosen.

*tIqlIj ghogh yIQoy!*

As for your question, Okrand has said that Klingon speakers often express a single English sentence as multiple Klingon sentences to avoid grammatical complexity.

I don't think he said it was something Klingon does to avoid grammatical complexity. Some of the Skybox translations are quite complex. I think this is the quote you're thinking of <http://klingonska.org/canon/1995-06-holqed-04-2-a.txt>, and Okrand said that splitting into smaller sentences was "what I find myself doing a lot, especially with these Skybox things." It was something that OKRAND did to avoid compexity.

This is particularly true with attempts to extend Relative Clauses beyond the simple examples we’ve been given. Ditto for Comparatives, and other constructions that linguists, in particular, so often seek to extend to the breaking point.

I agree about relative clauses: they can be extended while remaining completely grammatical, but go too far and you risk your audience losing the thread of the sentence. Since Klingon lacks prepositions, it packs a lot more meaning into nouns and verbs that can't be set apart the way prepositions can. Comparatives and superlatives don't get extended legally very much. People often try ungrammatical extensions though.

I’m not telling you that you can’t do it. I’m just suggesting that you might be wiser, were you to seek grammatically simpler methods of expressing meaning. Certainly, your Klingon sentences would be misunderstood less often.

I agree. mayqel has a tendency to string a lot of noun phrases together and worry about what modifies what. If a sentence COULD be misinterpreted, then just rewrite it in a way that it won't be. And if you're just interested in whether something is grammatically valid, just apply the known rules mechanically.

But that assumes that your goal is to be understood clearly in Klingon, and I will confess that it is a weak assumption.

There are other reasonable goals. From the original posts, I got the impression that the goal wasn't to find an unambiguous way to say this, but whether it was grammatically valid to say it at all, and if not, why. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name