not repeating the 'e' of a sao
We have the Ca'Non example of: romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' romulan hunter-killer probe The way I understand this, it is either: romuluSngan (Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh) nejwI' (the {Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh} functions like a single verb with a single noun) And/or it functions like: romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej (romuluSngan) HoHbogh nejwI' (the second {romuluSngan} is elided) Suppose now, that based on the above, I write: Example #1: romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSovbogh 'ej luchaw'bogh tera'ngan DIneH we want terrans who know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys romulan vessels Example #2: romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSov 'ej luchaw' tera'ngan the terrans know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys the romulan vessels Based on the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} example, aren't the examples 1 & 2 to be accepted as being grammatically correct ? ~ Qa'yIn
I started to answer this, then decided to let someone else, and it’s still here… Okay, keep in mind that {romuluSngan Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh nejwI’} is a noun phrase, and there’s nothing here that can give you any justification for any generalization you’d like to make about SAO. Basically, this noun phrase describes a device that is associated with Romulans (probably invented by them and used by them) that looks for, finds, and kills people. It doesn’t necessarily kill Romulans. In fact, I’d bet money on the idea that since Klingons have a word for this, it probably kills Klingons. The idea of it is somewhat cowardly from a Klingon perspective, given that a core value of Klingon culture is linked to a sense of honor that requires one to face your enemy and prove that you can kill your enemy in a fair fight, instead of killing him by remote control, which appeals much more to Romulan culture, so I’d even propose that the whole reason that the noun {romuluSngan} is first in the phrase is to emphasize that this is a ROMULAN thing, NOT a KLINGON thing. Maybe Klingons have other kinds of {nejwI’mey}, and they want to make sure that you understand that the kind that finds and kills people is the ROMULAN kind, or to make a statement about Romulans, just to remind you that THEY are the ones that have {nejwI’mey} that find and kill people. You don’t want to have three verbs ending in {-wI’} or it will look like three nouns, when you are really describing just one noun. So, one of the nouns is the verb with {-wI’} and the others need to be relative clauses using {-bogh}. So, that’s two verbs describing the same thing, so you need {‘ej} between them. So, it is {romuluSngan [Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh nejwI’]}, but realize that the first word is NOT the direct object of either verb. It’s the first noun of a noun-noun construction, and the two verbs are describing the second noun. So, if you want to start talking about SAO, you have to start somewhere else. This foundation doesn’t work. You may be able to make your argument, but right now, it’s like you say that apples are not “true to the seed”, meaning that if you plant seeds from a Fuji apple, the tree that grows from that will not give you Fuji apples, therefore, oranges are sweet if you let them ripen before squeezing them. The first part of your argument has nothing to do with the second part of your argument. They are wholly unrelated. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 3, 2020, at 8:21 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
We have the Ca'Non example of:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' romulan hunter-killer probe
The way I understand this, it is either:
romuluSngan (Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh) nejwI' (the {Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh} functions like a single verb with a single noun)
And/or it functions like:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej (romuluSngan) HoHbogh nejwI' (the second {romuluSngan} is elided)
Suppose now, that based on the above, I write:
Example #1:
romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSovbogh 'ej luchaw'bogh tera'ngan DIneH we want terrans who know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys romulan vessels
Example #2:
romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSov 'ej luchaw' tera'ngan the terrans know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys the romulan vessels
Based on the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} example, aren't the examples 1 & 2 to be accepted as being grammatically correct ?
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Searching about what the jay' this "romulan hunter-killer probe" actually is, I found this: https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Klingon_(game) I didn't have the time nor the patience to read the entire article, but seemingly/apparently the "romulan hunter-killer probe" is indeed a "hunter-killer probe which is of romulan design" rather than "a probe which hunts and kills romulans". But I don't see how this changes something. Lets leave aside the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'}. First question: Do we *have* to repeat the object in two different sentences ? If we want to say "we hunt enemies and we capture them", then do we need to write {jagh DIwam 'ej jagh DIjon} ? Can't we just write {jagh DIwam 'ej DIjon} ? And if we *can* indeed write the latter, then why can't we write the following too? romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSov 'ej luchaw' tera'ngan the terrans know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys the romulan vessels We have the {luSov} which has the object of {romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e'}, and then we have the {luchaw' tera'ngan} which has exactly the same object. How is this grammatically any different from the {jagh DIwam 'ej DIjon} ? Second question: We want to say: "the romulans helped the enemy which the cardassians hunted and captured". Would it be wrong to write {jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan} ? Is there someone here who will say that this sentence is wrong ? And since recently it has been shown that the verb of a sao which has the {'e'} as it's object, can indeed have type-9 suffixes, then why can't we write the following ? romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSovbogh 'ej luchaw'bogh tera'ngan DIneH we want terrans who know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys romulan vessels How is this grammatically any different from the {{jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan} ? If there is a grammar reason which makes the above sentences wrong, I'm still waiting to hear it. But unless such an explanation is given, I see no reason against writing sao's like the ones above. ~ Qa'yIn
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 13:47, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
We want to say: "the romulans helped the enemy which the cardassians hunted and captured". Would it be wrong to write {jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan} ? Is there someone here who will say that this sentence is wrong ?
pabHa'be' 'ach "The Romulans helped the Cardassians who hunted and captured the enemy" 'oSlaw'. -- De'vID
jIH:
We want to say: "the romulans helped the enemy which the cardassians hunted and captured". Would it be wrong to write {jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan} ? Is there someone here who will say that this sentence is wrong ? De'vID: pabHa'be' 'ach "The Romulans helped the > Cardassians who hunted and captured the enemy" 'oSlaw'.
I'm afraid I can't understand this. We have the sentence {jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan}. At this sentence, the {romuluSngan} is obviously plural as the {lu-} on the {luQaHpu'} indicates, and the {QaH} needs to have a singular object. Also, due to the {lu-} on each of the verbs of the {-bogh} clause, the {qarDaSngan} needs to be plural and the {jagh} singular. I think that the only meaning which could be produced by the above is "the romulans helped the enemy which the cardassians hunted and captured" Am I missing something here ? Other than that, I'd love to read your opinion with regards to the original question of this thread. ~ Qa'yIn
mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 4. Aug. 2020, 17:17:
jIH:
We want to say: "the romulans helped the enemy which the cardassians hunted and captured". Would it be wrong to write {jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan} ? Is there someone here who will say that this sentence is wrong ? De'vID: pabHa'be' 'ach "The Romulans helped the > Cardassians who hunted and captured the enemy" 'oSlaw'.
I'm afraid I can't understand this.
We have the sentence {jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan}.
At this sentence, the {romuluSngan} is obviously plural as the {lu-} on the {luQaHpu'} indicates, and the {QaH} needs to have a singular object. Also, due to the {lu-} on each of the verbs of the {-bogh} clause, the {qarDaSngan} needs to be plural and the {jagh} singular.
I think that the only meaning which could be produced by the above is "the romulans helped the enemy which the cardassians hunted and captured"
Am I missing something here ?
bIlugh. HIvqa' veqlargh. Qa'Hom'e' ghIjpu'bogh vIghro' choppu'bogh qovIj tlha'pu'bogh ngavyaw' Soppu' targh. -- De'vID
This is a reasonable translation, well thought out, though it might be less reasonable to expect anyone to parse it in conversation, in real time. It shows how you can carefully construct sentences in Klingon that can only be correctly interpreted one way, once one has studied it for a time, though you have to track the rules down a complex track to get there. In particular, it relies on the most commonly forgotten prefix in canon. Even Okrand forgets {lu-}. It also relies on a pair of relative clauses both of which refer to the same head noun, which is their object, not the subject, which is valid grammar, but perhaps less common than the subject, and you chose not to mark it with {-‘e’}, which is valid, but less easily parsed. So, there’s an ambiguity that you have clarified using the oddest 3rd person prefix. It is undoubtedly valid, though it feels less translated than encoded. Follow all the rules, and it leads to only one valid translation, though you must remember a lot and follow a specific logic to get there. You ask much of your reader. Sent from my iPad
On Aug 4, 2020, at 11:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
We want to say: "the romulans helped the enemy which the cardassians hunted and captured". Would it be wrong to write {jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan} ? Is there someone here who will say that this sentence is wrong ? De'vID: pabHa'be' 'ach "The Romulans helped the > Cardassians who hunted and captured the enemy" 'oSlaw'.
I'm afraid I can't understand this.
We have the sentence {jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan}.
At this sentence, the {romuluSngan} is obviously plural as the {lu-} on the {luQaHpu'} indicates, and the {QaH} needs to have a singular object. Also, due to the {lu-} on each of the verbs of the {-bogh} clause, the {qarDaSngan} needs to be plural and the {jagh} singular.
I think that the only meaning which could be produced by the above is "the romulans helped the enemy which the cardassians hunted and captured"
Am I missing something here ?
Other than that, I'd love to read your opinion with regards to the original question of this thread.
~ Qa'yIn
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
Leaving aside the {nejwI’} I don’t see why your First Question suggestion wouldn’t be allowed, though it might be of limited productivity, since whatever else you do, you’ll be better understood if {‘e’} goes between the sentence it represents and the sentence it serves as object for. Attempts to combine verb conjunctions and SAO might tempt you to compose sentences that would embed the sentence represented by {‘e’} within the sentence using it as an object, and even if this isn’t considered to be illegal grammar, it won’t be easily understood, and it might be considered annoying.
Ok, thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm not sure about all this myself, which is the reason I asked in the first place. As always, my interest in these kinds of questions is to understand how things work, and what the limits actually are. And even if the questions of this thread were indeed answered by a definite "yes, it is correct to construct these kinds of sentences", it wouldn't be my first choice to actually use them, since they could/would be confusing to the average reader. ~ Qa'yIn
I sincerely recommend that it might be more effective to write lots of stuff in Klingon (forcing you to learn more vocabulary because you’ll start memorizing things you otherwise would have simply looked up every time) and naturally encounter episodes of complex grammar and make the decision to either explore the details of that complexity, or just make more, simpler sentences to convey the same thought. The tendency to not write much in Klingon, but make an academic study of the potential for complexity in the grammar essentially creates a hypothetical you who could eventually learn to use the language well enough to need one of these complex sentences in order to say something. You aren’t exploring things useful to you. You are exploring things that would be useful to a hypothetical you who would hypothetically speak Klingon so well that simpler sentences would be boring and you’d want to know how far you can push the grammar while hypothetically speaking Klingon. I say that as a lazy, hypothetical Klingon speaker who has memorized a small vocabulary years ago and looks up a lot of stuff whenever I read or write things now, and I rarely read long Klingon passages because it takes so much time to look up so many words. For whatever else I may have done or been, these days, I see my role on this list primarily as a character actor providing occasional comic relief. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 5, 2020, at 5:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI':
Leaving aside the {nejwI’} I don’t see why your First Question suggestion wouldn’t be allowed, though it might be of limited productivity, since whatever else you do, you’ll be better understood if {‘e’} goes between the sentence it represents and the sentence it serves as object for. Attempts to combine verb conjunctions and SAO might tempt you to compose sentences that would embed the sentence represented by {‘e’} within the sentence using it as an object, and even if this isn’t considered to be illegal grammar, it won’t be easily understood, and it might be considered annoying.
Ok, thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm not sure about all this myself, which is the reason I asked in the first place. As always, my interest in these kinds of questions is to understand how things work, and what the limits actually are.
And even if the questions of this thread were indeed answered by a definite "yes, it is correct to construct these kinds of sentences", it wouldn't be my first choice to actually use them, since they could/would be confusing to the average reader.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/5/2020 11:15 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I sincerely recommend that it might be more effective to write lots of stuff in Klingon.
The tendency to not write much in Klingon, but make an academic study of the potential for complexity in the grammar essentially creates a hypothetical you who could eventually learn to use the language well enough to need one of these complex sentences in order to say something.
ghomvam DaqIm'a'? Qa'yIn tlhIngan Hol QInmey tIq law' Hoch tIq puS. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qatlho’. bong jIDoghmeH Qu’wIj vItoyqa’chu’pu’. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 5, 2020, at 11:21 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/5/2020 11:15 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I sincerely recommend that it might be more effective to write lots of stuff in Klingon.
The tendency to not write much in Klingon, but make an academic study of the potential for complexity in the grammar essentially creates a hypothetical you who could eventually learn to use the language well enough to need one of these complex sentences in order to say something.
ghomvam DaqIm'a'? Qa'yIn tlhIngan Hol QInmey tIq law' Hoch tIq puS.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Aug 5, 2020, at 11:21 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
ghomvam DaqIm'a'? Qa'yIn tlhIngan Hol QInmey tIq law' Hoch tIq puS.
QInDaj tIq vIlaDDI', qechDaj vItlha'laHbe'.. pIj nuvHey vIghovbe'bogh pong. pIj wanI'mey vIyajbe'bogh Del. jIyajchoHmeH jIghelchugh, muHIvlaw'. QInmeyvetlh tIn vIlaD vIneHbe'choHchu'. pIm QInDaj mach. Dalbe' bIH 'ej jIyajlaHchu'. 'a qay'laH bIH. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 8/5/2020 1:55 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Aug 5, 2020, at 11:21 AM, SuStel<sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
ghomvam DaqIm'a'? Qa'yIn tlhIngan Hol QInmey tIq law' Hoch tIq puS. QInDaj tIq vIlaDDI', qechDaj vItlha'laHbe'.. pIj nuvHey vIghovbe'bogh pong. pIj wanI'mey vIyajbe'bogh Del. jIyajchoHmeH jIghelchugh, muHIvlaw'. QInmeyvetlh tIn vIlaD vIneHbe'choHchu'.
pIm QInDaj mach. Dalbe' bIH 'ej jIyajlaHchu'. 'a qay'laH bIH.
jatlhbe'pu' charghwI': tlhIngan Hol DaghojmeH QIn Daj yIqon. jatlhbe'pu': latlhpu'vaD QInlIj tI'IHmoH. jatlhbe'pu': ghunchu'wI' yIqImmoH. jatlhpu' charghwI': tlhIngan Hol ghItlh Daqonbogh tIlaw'moH. Qu'vam ta'bejpu' Qa'yIn. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghunchu'wI':
QInDaj tIq vIlaDDI', qechDaj vItlha'laHbe'.. pIj nuvHey vIghovbe'bogh pong. pIj wanI'mey vIyajbe'bogh Del.
For a number of reasons, I may choose not to specify exactly some details of a message. What *is* of importance though, is the grammar. If due to any mistakes in grammar you can't understand what I'm talking about, then you can point them out. qeylIS knows, I love to be corrected; I *want* to be corrected. ghunchu'wI':
jIyajchoHmeH jIghelchugh, muHIvlaw'.
First of all, this has never happened. Yes we've argued, and quite intensely in the past, but that's all it ever was; a heated argument. And there is a specific reason this has happened. Whenever you don't understand what one of my posts is all about, instead of simply asking "what are you writing about ?", you start making assumptions as you did in the {'op jajmey..} thread: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-February/014366.htm... It would be better, if before making any assumptions, you just asked. ghunchu'wI':
QInmeyvetlh tIn vIlaD vIneHbe'choHchu'.
Then I'll have to respectfully ask you not to read them. That's why there's the "delete" button. Also there's something I can't understand. If SuStel, De'vID, lieven, voragh, charghwI', nIqolay Q complained, or had any opinion on how and what I write, then I'd understand it, since they taught me everything I know. Any one of these people would have every right to say to me: "Haven't we taught you better ?" But ghunchu'wI', with all due respect, you almost never taught me anything. You never answered a single difficult question. It is your right to choose who you'll help, but don't judge how a person writes, when you never chose to teach that person in the first place. tlh: QInmey vIqontaHvIS, 'op meqmo' 'op QInvam ngoDmey vIQIjchu'be' 'e' vIwIvlaH. 'ach potlh *pab neH*. pab'e' jIQaghpu'chugh, 'ej meqvammo' 'op QInwIj DayajlaHbe'chugh, vaj jIHvaD pab QaghwIj tI'agh. vIlughmoHlu' 'e' vIQej. vIlughmoHlu' vIneHchu' 'e' Sov qeylIS. wa'DIch not qaSpu' wanI' DaDelbogh. pa'logh maSolqu'pu', teH.. 'ach qaSpu' wanI'vam neH. qaSpu' Solqu'meH wanI' neH. 'ej wa' meq potlhmo' qaSpu' wanI'vam. QIn vIngeHpu'DI', 'ej nuv/wanI' bopbogh QInvam DayajlaHbe'chugh, bIghelbe': nuq bop QInlIj ? bI'IrchoH; 'ej SoHvaD {'op jajmey..} QIn tlhegh vIqawmoH. bI'IrchoHpa', bIghelchugh, vaj qaq vangmeH Ho'DoSvam. jIyI'; QInmeywIj Daparchugh, vaj tIlaDQo'. ngoQvam chavmeH vay', {QIn Qaw'} (clipped usage of {Qaw'}) leQ tu'lu'. 'ej vay' vIyajlaHbe'bogh tu'lu'.. bepchugh SuStel De'vID lieven voragh charghwI' nIqolay Q joq, QInmeywIj bopbogh vuD lujatlhchugh nuvvam, vaj SIbI' wanI'vam vIyajlaH, jIHvaD Hoch lughojmoHta' nuvvam. jIHvaD jatlhlaHbej Hoch nuvpu'vam: {pIghojmoHchu'pu'be''a'? qatlh bIQaghtaH?} 'a ghunchu'wI' - 'ej jIyI' - jIHvaD ramchu'wI'mey puSqu' neH DaghojmoHta'. not Qatlhchu'bogh pab DaQIjpu'. DIbna'Daj 'oH 'e' vIHonbe'bej. 'a not nuv DaghojmoHpu'chugh, vaj nuvvamvaD pagh yoj yImaq. ~ Qa'yIn
QInvamDaq pIj yajHa’chuq nuvpu’, ‘ej QeHchoH, ‘ej lIjQo’, ‘ej qeHHa’Qo’. jaghpu’ mojnISbe’, ‘ach mojqang. pupbe’ nuvpu’, vaj naDev, taHtaH jaghpu’. ghu’vam vImaSbe’, ‘ach vIchoHlaHbe’mo’ vIlaj. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 6, 2020, at 9:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ghunchu'wI':
QInDaj tIq vIlaDDI', qechDaj vItlha'laHbe'.. pIj nuvHey vIghovbe'bogh pong. pIj wanI'mey vIyajbe'bogh Del.
For a number of reasons, I may choose not to specify exactly some details of a message. What *is* of importance though, is the grammar. If due to any mistakes in grammar you can't understand what I'm talking about, then you can point them out. qeylIS knows, I love to be corrected; I *want* to be corrected.
ghunchu'wI':
jIyajchoHmeH jIghelchugh, muHIvlaw'.
First of all, this has never happened. Yes we've argued, and quite intensely in the past, but that's all it ever was; a heated argument. And there is a specific reason this has happened.
Whenever you don't understand what one of my posts is all about, instead of simply asking "what are you writing about ?", you start making assumptions as you did in the {'op jajmey..} thread:
http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-February/014366.htm...
It would be better, if before making any assumptions, you just asked.
ghunchu'wI':
QInmeyvetlh tIn vIlaD vIneHbe'choHchu'.
Then I'll have to respectfully ask you not to read them. That's why there's the "delete" button.
Also there's something I can't understand.
If SuStel, De'vID, lieven, voragh, charghwI', nIqolay Q complained, or had any opinion on how and what I write, then I'd understand it, since they taught me everything I know. Any one of these people would have every right to say to me:
"Haven't we taught you better ?"
But ghunchu'wI', with all due respect, you almost never taught me anything. You never answered a single difficult question. It is your right to choose who you'll help, but don't judge how a person writes, when you never chose to teach that person in the first place.
tlh:
QInmey vIqontaHvIS, 'op meqmo' 'op QInvam ngoDmey vIQIjchu'be' 'e' vIwIvlaH. 'ach potlh *pab neH*. pab'e' jIQaghpu'chugh, 'ej meqvammo' 'op QInwIj DayajlaHbe'chugh, vaj jIHvaD pab QaghwIj tI'agh. vIlughmoHlu' 'e' vIQej. vIlughmoHlu' vIneHchu' 'e' Sov qeylIS.
wa'DIch not qaSpu' wanI' DaDelbogh. pa'logh maSolqu'pu', teH.. 'ach qaSpu' wanI'vam neH. qaSpu' Solqu'meH wanI' neH. 'ej wa' meq potlhmo' qaSpu' wanI'vam. QIn vIngeHpu'DI', 'ej nuv/wanI' bopbogh QInvam DayajlaHbe'chugh, bIghelbe': nuq bop QInlIj ? bI'IrchoH; 'ej SoHvaD {'op jajmey..} QIn tlhegh vIqawmoH.
bI'IrchoHpa', bIghelchugh, vaj qaq vangmeH Ho'DoSvam.
jIyI'; QInmeywIj Daparchugh, vaj tIlaDQo'. ngoQvam chavmeH vay', {QIn Qaw'} (clipped usage of {Qaw'}) leQ tu'lu'.
'ej vay' vIyajlaHbe'bogh tu'lu'..
bepchugh SuStel De'vID lieven voragh charghwI' nIqolay Q joq, QInmeywIj bopbogh vuD lujatlhchugh nuvvam, vaj SIbI' wanI'vam vIyajlaH, jIHvaD Hoch lughojmoHta' nuvvam. jIHvaD jatlhlaHbej Hoch nuvpu'vam:
{pIghojmoHchu'pu'be''a'? qatlh bIQaghtaH?}
'a ghunchu'wI' - 'ej jIyI' - jIHvaD ramchu'wI'mey puSqu' neH DaghojmoHta'. not Qatlhchu'bogh pab DaQIjpu'. DIbna'Daj 'oH 'e' vIHonbe'bej. 'a not nuv DaghojmoHpu'chugh, vaj nuvvamvaD pagh yoj yImaq.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I had the game. It was more of a video with decision points that changed the outcome. The device was used by a dishonorable Klingon to attempt an assassination of the hero. It’s discovery was noted with obvious disgust for its cowardice. As for “Do you have to repeat the object?”, TKD explains that it is more common to repeat words in Klingon for clarity than it is in English, though this repetition is obviously not necessary for grammatical reasons. Okrand is just telling us that if you choose to repeat a word as you have done so, it will not bother Klingon speakers like it might bother English speakers to do the same thing. It is not uncommon in Klingon speech, according to that description, though I’m not sure we’ve actually seen a lot of that in canon. It might have been an idea that Okrand had that he has not actually implemented in canon. Leaving aside the {nejwI’} I don’t see why your First Question suggestion wouldn’t be allowed, though it might be of limited productivity, since whatever else you do, you’ll be better understood if {‘e’} goes between the sentence it represents and the sentence it serves as object for. Attempts to combine verb conjunctions and SAO might tempt you to compose sentences that would embed the sentence represented by {‘e’} within the sentence using it as an object, and even if this isn’t considered to be illegal grammar, it won’t be easily understood, and it might be considered annoying. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 4, 2020, at 7:47 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Searching about what the jay' this "romulan hunter-killer probe" actually is, I found this:
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Klingon_(game)
I didn't have the time nor the patience to read the entire article, but seemingly/apparently the "romulan hunter-killer probe" is indeed a "hunter-killer probe which is of romulan design" rather than "a probe which hunts and kills romulans".
But I don't see how this changes something. Lets leave aside the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'}.
First question:
Do we *have* to repeat the object in two different sentences ? If we want to say "we hunt enemies and we capture them", then do we need to write {jagh DIwam 'ej jagh DIjon} ? Can't we just write {jagh DIwam 'ej DIjon} ? And if we *can* indeed write the latter, then why can't we write the following too?
romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSov 'ej luchaw' tera'ngan the terrans know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys the romulan vessels
We have the {luSov} which has the object of {romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e'}, and then we have the {luchaw' tera'ngan} which has exactly the same object.
How is this grammatically any different from the {jagh DIwam 'ej DIjon} ?
Second question:
We want to say: "the romulans helped the enemy which the cardassians hunted and captured". Would it be wrong to write {jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan} ? Is there someone here who will say that this sentence is wrong ?
And since recently it has been shown that the verb of a sao which has the {'e'} as it's object, can indeed have type-9 suffixes, then why can't we write the following ?
romuluSngan Dujmey Qaw' tlhIngan yo' 'e' luSovbogh 'ej luchaw'bogh tera'ngan DIneH we want terrans who know and allow that the klingon fleet destroys romulan vessels
How is this grammatically any different from the {{jagh luwampu'bogh 'ej lujonpu'bogh qarDaSngan luQaHpu' romuluSngan} ?
If there is a grammar reason which makes the above sentences wrong, I'm still waiting to hear it. But unless such an explanation is given, I see no reason against writing sao's like the ones above.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 23:14, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
The device was used by a dishonorable Klingon to attempt an assassination of the hero. It’s discovery was noted with obvious disgust for its cowardice.
qarbe'. Sub ghaHbe' DoS'e'. Sub vav ghaH DoS'e', 'ach SIbI' ngoDvam Sovbe' Sub. ghawran HIvlaw' HoHwI', 'ach ghawran HubmeH Hegh Sub vav, 'e' pIH jIvvo'. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin