I asked this question on the Discord server a while back and got an opinion, but I wondered about it again recently, so I was curious to hear other opinions. Can the prefix trick be used with -lu'? For example, vIleghlu': I was seen Or do we have to make the indefinite subject explicit, with vay': mulegh vay': Somebody saw me My feeling is that vIleghlu' is okay, which lines up with the opinion I got when I asked (something like “we haven’t seen it done, but there doesn’t seem to be any reason not to do that”). I guess that leads me to a second part of the question, which is whether there’s some nuance in meaning between using -lu' with no subject and vay' as the subject. The fact that “(wot)laH vay'” is the grammatically correct alternative to the slang type 5 verb suffix -luH suggests to me that maybe they’re effectively equivalent. But if there’s more to it I am curious to learn. As a side note, I always though “qeylIS lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'” was a little weird when you could just as easily say “qeylIS lIjlaHbogh pagh” (and when the latter sounds more natural when you translate it directly into English), until I learned that -laH + vay' is the official way to get around the fact that -laH and -lu' are the same suffix type. I was actually a little disappointed when I learned that “qeylIS lIjlaHbogh pagh” was used in paq'batlh.
On 12/22/2018 6:50 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
I asked this question on the Discord server a while back and got an opinion, but I wondered about it again recently, so I was curious to hear other opinions.
Can the prefix trick be used with -lu'? For example,
vIleghlu': I was seen
Or do we have to make the indefinite subject explicit, with vay':
mulegh vay': Somebody saw me
I don't understand how this has anything to do with the prefix trick. *vIleghlu'* is the normal way to say /I am seen*./ The prefix trick becomes involved when you're using a verb prefix to indicate an indirect object instead of a direct object. I suppose the question might be whether something like *jIHvaD ghaH chuplu'*/He is recommended to me /could be altered via the prefix trick: would it be *ghaH vIchuplu'?* I don't see any technical reason why it couldn't be done, but as you say, it has never been seen in canon so there's no supporting evidence for it either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * /I was seen/ would normally be expressing a single instance of being seen, rather than a general state of being seen or anything like that, and would usually appear as *vIleghlu'pu'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Dec 22, 2018, at 16:21, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/22/2018 6:50 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote: I asked this question on the Discord server a while back and got an opinion, but I wondered about it again recently, so I was curious to hear other opinions.
Can the prefix trick be used with -lu'? For example,
vIleghlu': I was seen
Or do we have to make the indefinite subject explicit, with vay':
mulegh vay': Somebody saw me I don't understand how this has anything to do with the prefix trick. vIleghlu' is the normal way to say I am seen*. The prefix trick becomes involved when you're using a verb prefix to indicate an indirect object instead of a direct object. I suppose the question might be whether something like jIHvaD ghaH chuplu' He is recommended to me could be altered via the prefix trick: would it be ghaH vIchuplu'? I don't see any technical reason why it couldn't be done, but as you say, it has never been seen in canon so there's no supporting evidence for it either.
Yes, I wrote a bad example for asking my question. Your example illustrates my actual question. Hagh qoHpu' neH HeghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'. The original thing I was asking about was part of a relative clause so I wanted to simplify the example but I guess I made it too simple and omitted an actual indirect object which was the point of the prefix trick. The clause was “Sep vIDellu'bogh” which I used in the sentence: pa' Sep'e' jInajtaHvIS vIDellu'bogh tu'lu' Over there there is a region that was described to me while I was dreaming (There are probably other problems with this sentence; I wasn’t sure where to place the jInajtaHvIS, for example, which is also why I wanted to simplify the example.) I went with “muDelbogh vay'” since it didn’t affect syllable count or the rhyme at the end of the line (rhyming with “jenqu'” in the previous line) and the meter actually worked out better too that way.
* I was seen would normally be expressing a single instance of being seen, rather than a general state of being seen or anything like that, and would usually appear as vIleghlu'pu'.
If I’m telling a story about something that happened in the past, and talking about being seen in the moment the story, I feel it would be appropriate, even if the listener knows the events are completed from the frame of reference of the actual present, right?
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/22/2018 9:01 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
The original thing I was asking about was part of a relative clause so I wanted to simplify the example but I guess I made it too simple and omitted an actual indirect object which was the point of the prefix trick. The clause was “Sep vIDellu'bogh” which I used in the sentence:
pa' Sep'e' jInajtaHvIS vIDellu'bogh tu'lu' Over there there is a region that was described to me while I was dreaming
(There are probably other problems with this sentence; I wasn’t sure where to place the jInajtaHvIS, for example, which is also why I wanted to simplify the example.)
Yes, the *jInajtaHvIS* makes it way too complicated... probably even without considering the prefix trick. It might make grammatical sense with the *jInajtaHvIS* between the *pa'* and *Sep'e'* or after the *vIDellu'bogh,* but at this point I'd be worried about the listener's ability to parse the nested clauses. If we drop the dreaming bit for now, and show the sentence without the prefix trick, we have *pa' jIHvaD Sep Dellu'pu'bogh tu'lu' */The region which was described to me is thereabouts. /(Notice that the *-pu'* is required; the describing is already done.) I don't see why the prefix trick wouldn't work here, again with the caveat that we've never seen the prefix trick on a verb with an indefinite subject: *pa' Sep vIDellu'pu'bogh tu'lu' */The region which was described to me is thereabouts./ If I had to put the dreaming back in, and if I had to keep it all in one sentence, I'd probably do it like this: *pa' Sep vIDellu'pu'bogh jInajtaHvIS tu'lu' */The region which was described to me while I was dreaming is thereabouts./
I went with “muDelbogh vay'” since it didn’t affect syllable count or the rhyme at the end of the line (rhyming with “jenqu'” in the previous line) and the meter actually worked out better too that way.
I'm not going to mess with meter or rhyme. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Dec 22, 2018, at 7:56 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/22/2018 9:01 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
The original thing I was asking about was part of a relative clause so I wanted to simplify the example but I guess I made it too simple and omitted an actual indirect object which was the point of the prefix trick. The clause was “Sep vIDellu'bogh” which I used in the sentence:
pa' Sep'e' jInajtaHvIS vIDellu'bogh tu'lu' Over there there is a region that was described to me while I was dreaming
(There are probably other problems with this sentence; I wasn’t sure where to place the jInajtaHvIS, for example, which is also why I wanted to simplify the example.) Yes, the jInajtaHvIS makes it way too complicated... probably even without considering the prefix trick. It might make grammatical sense with the jInajtaHvIS between the pa' and Sep'e' or after the vIDellu'bogh, but at this point I'd be worried about the listener's ability to parse the nested clauses.
If we drop the dreaming bit for now, and show the sentence without the prefix trick, we have
pa' jIHvaD Sep Dellu'pu'bogh tu'lu' The region which was described to me is thereabouts. (Notice that the -pu' is required; the describing is already done.)
I know the dreaming part has been removed for simplicity here, but can the frame of reference not be the dream? In the context of the dream, if you’re thinking of the -taHvIS part, the describing isn’t necessarily completed. I suppose -pu’ captures the “once” meaning from the original sentence I was aiming for: “there’s a land that I dreamed of once in a lullaby”.
I don't see why the prefix trick wouldn't work here, again with the caveat that we've never seen the prefix trick on a verb with an indefinite subject:
pa' Sep vIDellu'pu'bogh tu'lu' The region which was described to me is thereabouts. If I had to put the dreaming back in, and if I had to keep it all in one sentence, I'd probably do it like this:
pa' Sep vIDellu'pu'bogh jInajtaHvIS tu'lu' The region which was described to me while I was dreaming is thereabouts.
Yeah, two sentences would obviously have been easier. My two sentence version of this was: “jInajtaHvIS Sep vIDellu’; pa’ Sepvam tu’lu’.” Good to know that the jInajtaHvIS can go after the -boghed verb. I think "pa’ Sep vIDellu’pu’bogh jInajtaHvIS tu’lu’" was actually exactly my first draft of that sentence, but then I was worried that the jInajtaHvIS was a time stamp, and had to go at the beginning, but if it came at the very beginning of the sentence, it might make it sound like the observation of the region (since tu’ is the actual main verb of the sentence) is what happened during the dream, and not the describing. Then at around the same time I started worrying about whether the prefix trick would work with -lu’. I went with topic-marking the Sep and then putting jInajtaHvIS after Sep’e’ because there’s a rule that lets you move time stamps after a topicalized object. (I’m traveling for the holidays and didn’t bring any Klingon books with me, but I’m pretty sure it’s in TKDa.) It also made the jInajtaHvIS seem more obviously like it was talking about the Del and not the tu’. And on second thought, I could see a reading of “pa’ Sep vIDellu’pu’bogh jInajtaHvIS tu’lu’” where the tu’lu’ is what happens during the jInajtaHvIS. Anyway, if a -taHvISed verb isn’t a time stamp, that’s good to know. And I guess it isn’t, because when you add an object, something like “jIHaghqu'taH paqvetlh vIlaDtaHvIS” doesn’t sound wrong.
I went with “muDelbogh vay'” since it didn’t affect syllable count or the rhyme at the end of the line (rhyming with “jenqu'” in the previous line) and the meter actually worked out better too that way. I'm not going to mess with meter or rhyme.
-- 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 12/22/2018 11:58 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Dec 22, 2018, at 7:56 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 12/22/2018 9:01 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
The original thing I was asking about was part of a relative clause so I wanted to simplify the example but I guess I made it too simple and omitted an actual indirect object which was the point of the prefix trick. The clause was “Sep vIDellu'bogh” which I used in the sentence:
pa' Sep'e' jInajtaHvIS vIDellu'bogh tu'lu' Over there there is a region that was described to me while I was dreaming
(There are probably other problems with this sentence; I wasn’t sure where to place the jInajtaHvIS, for example, which is also why I wanted to simplify the example.)
Yes, the *jInajtaHvIS* makes it way too complicated... probably even without considering the prefix trick. It might make grammatical sense with the *jInajtaHvIS* between the *pa'* and *Sep'e'* or after the *vIDellu'bogh,* but at this point I'd be worried about the listener's ability to parse the nested clauses.
If we drop the dreaming bit for now, and show the sentence without the prefix trick, we have
*pa' jIHvaD Sep Dellu'pu'bogh tu'lu' */The region which was described to me is thereabouts. /(Notice that the *-pu'* is required; the describing is already done.)
I know the dreaming part has been removed for simplicity here, but can the frame of reference not be the dream? In the context of the dream, if you’re thinking of the -taHvIS part, the describing isn’t necessarily completed.
I suppose -pu’ captures the “once” meaning from the original sentence I was aiming for: “there’s a land that I dreamed of once in a lullaby”.
The frame of reference for this sentence, that is, the viewpoint from which it is being spoken, is after the describing is completed, but while the region is still thereabouts. That's what makes *Del* need a *-pu'.* Being thereabouts is not a completed action.
I don't see why the prefix trick wouldn't work here, again with the caveat that we've never seen the prefix trick on a verb with an indefinite subject:
*pa' Sep vIDellu'pu'bogh tu'lu' */The region which was described to me is thereabouts./
If I had to put the dreaming back in, and if I had to keep it all in one sentence, I'd probably do it like this:
*pa' Sep vIDellu'pu'bogh jInajtaHvIS tu'lu' */The region which was described to me while I was dreaming is thereabouts./
Yeah, two sentences would obviously have been easier. My two sentence version of this was: “jInajtaHvIS Sep vIDellu’; pa’ Sepvam tu’lu’.”
With the exception of needing *-pu'* on *vIDellu',* this is much easier to follow.
Anyway, if a -taHvISed verb isn’t a time stamp, that’s good to know. And I guess it isn’t, because when you add an object, something like “jIHaghqu'taH paqvetlh vIlaDtaHvIS” doesn’t sound wrong.
Dependent clauses using *-DI', -vIS, -chugh, -pa',* and *-mo'* can go either before the main clause or after it. Dependent clauses can describe a time, but they're not the sort of "time expression" being referred to by TKD. What that means is a grammatically unmarked phrase referring to the time. For example, from TKD: *cha yIbaH qara'DI' qara'DI' cha yIbaH */Fire the torpedoes at my command!/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Dec 23, 2018, at 06:14, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I know the dreaming part has been removed for simplicity here, but can the frame of reference not be the dream? In the context of the dream, if you’re thinking of the -taHvIS part, the describing isn’t necessarily completed.
I suppose -pu’ captures the “once” meaning from the original sentence I was aiming for: “there’s a land that I dreamed of once in a lullaby”. The frame of reference for this sentence, that is, the viewpoint from which it is being spoken, is after the describing is completed, but while the region is still thereabouts. That's what makes Del need a -pu'. Being thereabouts is not a completed action.
You’re speaking about this sentence specifically, and not broadly, right? Because it is my understanding that in general, the frame of reference can be from something within the sentence rather than the actual frame of reference in which the speaker is speaking and the listener is listening. For example: HeSwI'pu' luqoplu'ta' mapawpa' The criminals will have been arrested before we arrive In this case, we’re talking about an action that will have been completed at some point in the future, from the frame of reference of the utterance, but is already completed from the frame of reference of our future arrival. So why can’t Sep vIDellu' jInajtaHvIS A region was described to me while I was dreaming be from the frame of reference of jInajtaH - I was dreaming? By extension, pa' Sep vIDellu'bogh jInajtaHvIS tu'lu' Thereabouts / a region / which was described to me / while I was dreaming / is found (I chose this word order for this example because it works more or less in both Klingon and English) Here, why can’t Del be something that happened while jInajtaH, and in the frame of reference of jInajtaH, be an in-the-moment, not-completed, not-continuous action? I’m not trying to argue that the -pu' isn’t needed if the action is indeed completed from the sentence’s frame of reference, even though my still evolving mental model of the language isn’t fully convinced that it is; I’m just trying to understand what exactly is allowable as a frame of reference.
On 12/24/2018 10:47 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Dec 23, 2018, at 06:14, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
I know the dreaming part has been removed for simplicity here, but can the frame of reference not be the dream? In the context of the dream, if you’re thinking of the -taHvIS part, the describing isn’t necessarily completed.
I suppose -pu’ captures the “once” meaning from the original sentence I was aiming for: “there’s a land that I dreamed of once in a lullaby”.
The frame of reference for this sentence, that is, the viewpoint from which it is being spoken, is after the describing is completed, but while the region is still thereabouts. That's what makes *Del* need a *-pu'.* Being thereabouts is not a completed action.
You’re speaking about this sentence specifically, and not broadly, right? Because it is my understanding that in general, the frame of reference can be from something within the sentence rather than the actual frame of reference in which the speaker is speaking and the listener is listening.
For example:
HeSwI'pu' luqoplu'ta' mapawpa' The criminals will have been arrested before we arrive
In this case, we’re talking about an action that will have been completed at some point in the future, from the frame of reference of the utterance, but is already completed from the frame of reference of our future arrival.
Yes, I was saying that in that sentence, the viewpoint, or frame of reference, is the moment of speaking. That's not necessarily true for every sentence, as you illustrate.
So why can’t
Sep vIDellu' jInajtaHvIS A region was described to me while I was dreaming
be from the frame of reference of jInajtaH - I was dreaming? By extension,
pa' Sep vIDellu'bogh jInajtaHvIS tu'lu' Thereabouts / a region / which was described to me / while I was dreaming / is found (I chose this word order for this example because it works more or less in both Klingon and English)
Here, why can’t Del be something that happened while jInajtaH, and in the frame of reference of jInajtaH, be an in-the-moment, not-completed, not-continuous action?
Because you're asking the listener to adopt two viewpoints simultaneously: the moment in the dream when you're told about the region, and the moment the sentence is being spoken in which the region is found. The main clause of the sentence, and the main idea, is that the region exists ("is found"). That's your viewpoint, your frame of reference. Everything else needs to be given in relation to that. There IS a region; it WAS described. *Sep tu'lu'; jIHvaD Dellu'pu'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (2)
-
Daniel Dadap -
SuStel