kli mailing list 1999.07.19: {tera'vo' Qo'noS vIchegh} I return to Kronos from Earth maj.. Could I write instead: {Qo'noSDaq tera'vo' jIchegh}, with the meaning remaining the same ? qunnoq
On 8/9/2017 11:20 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
kli mailing list 1999.07.19:
{tera'vo' Qo'noS vIchegh} I return to Kronos from Earth
maj..
Could I write instead:
{Qo'noSDaq tera'vo' jIchegh}, with the meaning remaining the same ?
*chegh* is one of those words whose object has a locative sense <http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1999-07-19b-email.txt&q=chegh>, as revealed in the very message you're looking at. Therefore, *Qo'noSDaq jIchegh* means /on Kronos, I return (to someplace unspecified)./ The meaning changes. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, I understand the change of meaning with regards to the aforementioned {chegh} example. But now, lets look at another example.. PK: *> naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'** can we get to the Great Hall* *> from here?* If we wrote instead {vaS'a'Daq naDevvo' majaHlaH'a'}, then would that mean "can we get to the great hall from here", or "are we able to go away from here, with the going taking place in the vicinity of the great hall, but in a direction away from here" ? qunnoq On 9 Aug 2017 6:26 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: On 8/9/2017 11:20 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: kli mailing list 1999.07.19: {tera'vo' Qo'noS vIchegh} I return to Kronos from Earth maj.. Could I write instead: {Qo'noSDaq tera'vo' jIchegh}, with the meaning remaining the same ? *chegh* is one of those words whose object has a locative sense <http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1999-07-19b-email.txt&q=chegh>, as revealed in the very message you're looking at. Therefore, *Qo'noSDaq jIchegh* means *on Kronos, I return (to someplace unspecified).* The meaning changes. -- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/9/2017 11:40 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, I understand the change of meaning with regards to the aforementioned {chegh} example.
But now, lets look at another example..
PK: *> naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'*/ can we get to the Great Hall/ /> from here?/
If we wrote instead {vaS'a'Daq naDevvo' majaHlaH'a'}, then would that mean "can we get to the great hall from here", or "are we able to go away from here, with the going taking place in the vicinity of the great hall, but in a direction away from here" ?
As I mentioned in another post today, that example was written before Okrand had come up with the "verbs of motion" thing, and it does not follow the rule. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Oh, sorry.. my bad (as americans say). I failed to adequately formulate the question.. So, here goes again.. For a moment let us forget where and when the phrase was written. Focusing only on the phrase and the current grammar, with regards to the usage of the verbs of movement, then.. If we write {vaS'a'Daq naDevvo' majaHlaH'a'}, then does that mean "can we get to the great hall from here", or "are we able to go away from here, with the going taking place in the vicinity of the great hall, but in a direction away from here" ? qunnoq On 9 Aug 2017 6:53 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/9/2017 11:40 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, I understand the change of meaning with regards to the aforementioned {chegh} example.
But now, lets look at another example..
PK: *> naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'** can we get to the Great Hall* *> from here?*
If we wrote instead {vaS'a'Daq naDevvo' majaHlaH'a'}, then would that mean "can we get to the great hall from here", or "are we able to go away from here, with the going taking place in the vicinity of the great hall, but in a direction away from here" ?
As I mentioned in another post today, that example was written before Okrand had come up with the "verbs of motion" thing, and it does not follow the rule.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/9/2017 11:59 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Oh, sorry.. my bad (as americans say). I failed to adequately formulate the question..
So, here goes again..
For a moment let us forget where and when the phrase was written. Focusing only on the phrase and the current grammar, with regards to the usage of the verbs of movement, then..
If we write {vaS'a'Daq naDevvo' majaHlaH'a'}, then does that mean "can we get to the great hall from here", or "are we able to go away from here, with the going taking place in the vicinity of the great hall, but in a direction away from here" ?
The latter. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Aug 9, 2017 17:59, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: If we write {vaS'a'Daq naDevvo' majaHlaH'a'}, then does that mean "can we get to the great hall from here", or "are we able to go away from here, with the going taking place in the vicinity of the great hall, but in a direction away from here" ? Consider the following pair of sentences: {vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} Where is {vaS'a'} located in each sentence? -- De'vID
De'vID:
{vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} Where is {vaS'a'} located in each sentence?
I have to admit that these sentences confuse me. However, in the first sentence, I think that the {vaS'a'} is located on earth, while at the second sentence, the {vaS'a} is located at the building of the federation's ra'ghom. Am I right ? qunnoq On 9 Aug 2017 7:23 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 9, 2017 17:59, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If we write {vaS'a'Daq naDevvo' majaHlaH'a'}, then does that mean "can we get to the great hall from here", or "are we able to go away from here, with the going taking place in the vicinity of the great hall, but in a direction away from here" ?
Consider the following pair of sentences:
{vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh}
Where is {vaS'a'} located in each sentence?
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
De'vID:
{vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} Where is {vaS'a'} located in each sentence?
I re-thought this ! At the first sentence, the {vaS'a'} is located on earth. At the second sentence, the {vaS'a'} is located at the subject of the {chegh). The subject of the {chegh} is returning to earth, to the building of the federation's ra'ghom, having as his starting point the {vaS'a'}. Right ? qunnoq jan puqloD On 9 Aug 2017 8:14 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} Where is {vaS'a'} located in each sentence?
I have to admit that these sentences confuse me.
However, in the first sentence, I think that the {vaS'a'} is located on earth, while at the second sentence, the {vaS'a} is located at the building of the federation's ra'ghom.
Am I right ?
qunnoq
On 9 Aug 2017 7:23 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 9, 2017 17:59, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If we write {vaS'a'Daq naDevvo' majaHlaH'a'}, then does that mean "can we get to the great hall from here", or "are we able to go away from here, with the going taking place in the vicinity of the great hall, but in a direction away from here" ?
Consider the following pair of sentences:
{vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh}
Where is {vaS'a'} located in each sentence?
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Aug 9, 2017 19:14, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: De'vID:
{vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} Where is {vaS'a'} located in each sentence?
I have to admit that these sentences confuse me. However, in the first sentence, I think that the {vaS'a'} is located on earth, qatlh 'e' DaQub? while at the second sentence, the {vaS'a} is located at the building of the federation's ra'ghom. -- De'vID
On 9 Aug 2017 9:26 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: On Aug 9, 2017 19:14, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: De'vID:
{vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} Where is {vaS'a'} located in each sentence?
I have to admit that these sentences confuse me. However, in the first sentence, I think that the {vaS'a'} is located on earth, qatlh 'e' DaQub? hmm.. perhaps I realize the problem.. I read together the words {vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq}, independently from the rest of the sentence, translating erroneously the construction "from the great hall which is on earth". So, maybe, at this first sentence the subject of {chegh} is at the great hall, and from there he is returning to the {DIvI' ra'ghom qach}. while at the second sentence, the {vaS'a} is located at the building of the federation's ra'ghom. Initially I wrote this, but later I revised it and wrote: The {vaS'a'} is located at the subject of the {chegh). The subject of the {chegh} is returning to earth, to the building of the federation's ra'ghom, having as his starting point the {vaS'a'} So, my new answer is that at both of the sentences the {vaS'a'} is located at the location of the subject of {chegh}, and from there the subject does the returning. Would you agree with these new conclusions ? qunnoq
On 9 August 2017 at 20:56, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} Where is {vaS'a'} located in each sentence?
hmm.. perhaps I realize the problem.. I read together the words {vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq}, independently from the rest of the sentence, translating erroneously the construction "from the great hall which is on earth".
So, maybe, at this first sentence the subject of {chegh} is at the great hall, and from there he is returning to the {DIvI' ra'ghom qach}.
So you get that the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} for "return from X to Y".
while at the second sentence, the {vaS'a} is located at the building of the federation's ra'ghom. [...] So, my new answer is that at both of the sentences the {vaS'a'} is located at the location of the subject of {chegh}, and from there the subject does the returning.
Would you agree with these new conclusions ?
But where is the {vaS'a'} relative to the Federation command centre on Earth? Consider the following: {[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh} {[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh} -- De'vID
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:38 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
...Consider the following: {[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh} {[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh}
Qo'. You seem to be suggesting that we parse {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach} and {tera'Daq DIvI' raghom qachDaq vaS'a'} as noun phrases bearing a Type 5 suffix on the final noun. However, that treatment violates the prohibition of a Type 5 suffix on the first noun of such a phrase. I will not consider them further. -- ghunchu'wI'
De'vID:
{tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} jIH: the {vaS'a'} is located at the location of the subject of {chegh}, and from there the subject does the returning. De'vID: But where is the {vaS'a'} relative to the Federation command centre on Earth? Consider the following: {[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh} {[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh}
I am afraid you lost me.. If I hadn't seen the last sentences you posted, (the ones which bear the [] marks), I would have to reply saying, that at both of your original sentences (the ones without the []), the {vaS'a'} is somewhere else in relation to the federation command centre on earth. I can't specify any other location for the {vaS'a'}, except that it is the location of the subject of {chegh}, the location from where the "returning" commences. Reading the sentences which contain the [] signs, I couldn't understand anything more. In fact I got confused, because at both of the sentences we have included in the [] signs, noun-noun constructions where the noun(s) preceding the final noun bear type-5 suffixes. qunnoq On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:38 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
...Consider the following: {[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh} {[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh}
Qo'.
You seem to be suggesting that we parse {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach} and {tera'Daq DIvI' raghom qachDaq vaS'a'} as noun phrases bearing a Type 5 suffix on the final noun. However, that treatment violates the prohibition of a Type 5 suffix on the first noun of such a phrase.
I will not consider them further.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10 August 2017 at 15:58, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} jIH: the {vaS'a'} is located at the location of the subject of {chegh}, and from there the subject does the returning. De'vID: But where is the {vaS'a'} relative to the Federation command centre on Earth? Consider the following: {[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh} {[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh}
I am afraid you lost me..
If I hadn't seen the last sentences you posted, (the ones which bear the [] marks), I would have to reply saying, that at both of your original sentences (the ones without the []), the {vaS'a'} is somewhere else in relation to the federation command centre on earth. I can't specify any other location for the {vaS'a'}, except that it is the location of the subject of {chegh}, the location from where the "returning" commences.
Reading the sentences which contain the [] signs, I couldn't understand anything more. In fact I got confused, because at both of the sentences we have included in the [] signs, noun-noun constructions where the noun(s) preceding the final noun bear type-5 suffixes.
How would you write "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth"? -- De'vID
De'vID:
How would you write "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth"?
According to the examples with regards to the use of {chegh}, which are written at kli mailing list 1999.07.19, then I would write: {[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh} But why couldn't I reverse the order of {-vo'} and {-Daq}, thus writing: {[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh} ? qunnoq On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:38 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 August 2017 at 15:58, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'vo' chegh} jIH: the {vaS'a'} is located at the location of the subject of {chegh}, and from there the subject does the returning. De'vID: But where is the {vaS'a'} relative to the Federation command centre on Earth? Consider the following: {[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh} {[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh}
I am afraid you lost me..
If I hadn't seen the last sentences you posted, (the ones which bear the [] marks), I would have to reply saying, that at both of your original sentences (the ones without the []), the {vaS'a'} is somewhere else in relation to the federation command centre on earth. I can't specify any other location for the {vaS'a'}, except that it is the location of the subject of {chegh}, the location from where the "returning" commences.
Reading the sentences which contain the [] signs, I couldn't understand anything more. In fact I got confused, because at both of the sentences we have included in the [] signs, noun-noun constructions where the noun(s) preceding the final noun bear type-5 suffixes.
How would you write "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth"?
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thursday, 10 August 2017 15:38:34 BST De'vID wrote:
How would you write "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth"?
Now qunnoq's submitted his, is it not this: {tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qach vaS'a'vo' chegh.} The whole thing (before the -vo') is a noun phrase, and they tell me there cannot be a -Daq or -vo' on the first noun. mupwI'
On 8/10/2017 10:38 AM, De'vID wrote:
How would you write "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth"?
tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qach vaS'a'vo' chegh ghunchu'wI' is right: you can't put those type 5 suffixes in the middle of this. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
So, SuStel you are saying that {tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qach vaS'a'vo' chegh} is correct for "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth" ? qunnoq On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:06 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/10/2017 10:38 AM, De'vID wrote:
How would you write "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth"?
tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qach vaS'a'vo' chegh
ghunchu'wI' is right: you can't put those type 5 suffixes in the middle of this.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/10/2017 11:10 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So, SuStel you are saying that {tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qach vaS'a'vo' chegh} is correct for "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth" ?
quSDaq bIba'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
This thread is slowly turning into a nightmare.. There is a sentence, which we are trying to translate; this sentence is "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth". But the problem is, there is obviously some confusion with regards to what actually its trying to say. Does it mean : "he returns (wherever it is he is returning) from the great hall (which is) at the Federation command centre on Earth", or "he returns from the great hall (at Kronos) to the Federation command centre on Earth" ? Because if it actually means "he returns from the great hall (at Kronos) to the Federation command centre on Earth", then I can't understand how the {tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qach vaS'a'vo' chegh} can be correct, without a {-Daq} included somewhere in the sentence. What I'm trying to understand (and the more this thread continues, the "trying" becomes "struggling"), is why -as De'vID wrote- "the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}". I re-thought this, and I came to this conclusion: The pattern can be only {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} because the {chegh} is given as "return (to)" and not "return from". So, the object of the {chegh} has to be the destination, and not the starting point. The starting point comes first (at the left of the sentence) marked with {-vo'}, the destination comes right before the {chegh} made clear by the use of a prefix indicating as an object the word before the {chegh}. If we want, we can place a {-Daq} on the noun of the destination, but if we have used on {chegh} a prefix indicating an object it is redundant. And if we have a noun bearing the {-Daq} right before the {chegh}, with the {chegh} having a no-object prefix then the "returning" is taking place "by the means" of the {-Daq}ed noun. Alternatively we can have a {-Daq}ed noun at the beginning of the sentence, followed by a suffix-less noun and then by the {chegh} having as its object the suffix-less noun; in this case the returning takes place "by the means" of the {-Daq}ed noun, to the destination that is written just before the {chegh}. qunnoq On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:21 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/10/2017 11:10 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So, SuStel you are saying that {tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qach vaS'a'vo' chegh} is correct for "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth" ?
quSDaq bIba'.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/10/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
This thread is slowly turning into a nightmare..
That's because everyone is trying to engage in Socratic dialogues, and multi-threaded email lists don't lend themselves to that.
There is a sentence, which we are trying to translate; this sentence is "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth".
But the problem is, there is obviously some confusion with regards to what actually its trying to say. Does it mean : "he returns (wherever it is he is returning) from the great hall (which is) at the Federation command centre on Earth", or "he returns from the great hall (at Kronos) to the Federation command centre on Earth" ?
There is no /to/ in the sentence to be analyzed. /He returns from the great hall at the Federation command center on Earth/ means, in English, that there is a great hall, the great hall is at the Federation command center, and the center is on Earth. It cannot mean that you're going from a great hall on Kronos to a command center on Earth. /At/ does not mean the same thing as /to/ (or /of/). If you want to talk about going from a great hall on Kronos to the command center on Earth, which is NOT what was asked for, then I'd say that as: *[Qo'noS] vaS'a'vo' tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh* I added the *Qo'noS* to make it explicit that we're talking about a great hall on Kronos. Lemme add some punctuation to make it clear which phrases are independent here: *[Qo'noS] vaS'a'vo', tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq, chegh* There is no noun-noun relationship between the first two phrases. They are completely independent of each other. The only thing they have in common is that they both act as syntactic noun phrases to the main sentence, *chegh.* * *
What I'm trying to understand (and the more this thread continues, the "trying" becomes "struggling"), is why -as De'vID wrote- "the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}".
I don't know anything about there being a REASON it can only work that way. What I know is what Voragh has already pointed out: we have many canonical examples of *X-vo' Y-Daq OVS* and none of *Y-Daq X-vo' OVS.* The answer to your question is "that's just the way it is." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 8/10/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
What I'm trying to understand (and the more this thread continues, the "trying" becomes "struggling"), is why -as De'vID wrote- "the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}".
Hm, sorry for repeating if that's what I wrote in my previous message. Am 10.08.2017 um 18:25 schrieb SuStel:
canonical examples of *X-vo' Y-Daq OVS* and none of *Y-Daq X-vo' OVS.* The answer to your question is "that's just the way it is."
Sometimes, things are just as they are and why should you change it. In English, you also go "from here to there" and saying that you go "to there from here" sounds strange (to me at least). Maybe it's just some kind of speaking logic? First mentioning where you start, and the target comes after? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 8/10/2017 12:39 PM, Lieven wrote:
Am 10.08.2017 um 18:25 schrieb SuStel:
canonical examples of *X-vo' Y-Daq OVS* and none of *Y-Daq X-vo' OVS.* The answer to your question is "that's just the way it is."
Sometimes, things are just as they are and why should you change it. In English, you also go "from here to there" and saying that you go "to there from here" sounds strange (to me at least).
You CAN reverse them in English. /How do I get from here to there? How do I get there from here?/ But notice the dropping of the /to;/ the order CANNOT be reversed if the /to/ remains. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
"How do I get to Crewe from Manchester by road?" seems natural to me. About another query, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pararhyme ----Original message----
From : sustel@trimboli.name Date : 10/08/2017 - 17:52 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject : Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Reversing the order of {-vo'} You CAN reverse them in English. How do I get from here to there? How do I get there from here? But notice the dropping of the to; the order CANNOT be reversed if the to remains.
Yesterday someone sent a message about syllable stress in Klingon with stressed syllables uppercased and unstressed syllables lowercased. That lost the Q/q distinction. In such usages, spelling {Q} as "qh" (as is sometimes done in the Quechua language) would restore the difference in emergencies where case of letters cannot be used for its usual purpose.
But then you wouldn't be able to tell between {-qH-} and {-Q-} in the middle of a word. For instance, {baqHa'} "unterminate, undiscontinue" and {baQa'} (an invective), would both be written as BAQHA'. There are already existing systems for rendering Klingon orthography in single character monocases (usually for ease of lookup in a dictionary, or for making pIqaD fonts). Those just use a "k" for either q or Q. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Anthony Appleyard < a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
Yesterday someone sent a message about syllable stress in Klingon with stressed syllables uppercased and unstressed syllables lowercased. That lost the Q/q distinction. In such usages, spelling {Q} as "qh" (as is sometimes done in the Quechua language) would restore the difference in emergencies where case of letters cannot be used for its usual purpose.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 12:25 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 8/10/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: ... * *
What I'm trying to understand (and the more this thread continues, the "trying" becomes "struggling"), is why -as De'vID wrote- "the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}".
I don't know anything about there being a REASON it can only work that way. What I know is what Voragh has already pointed out: we have many canonical examples of *X-vo' Y-Daq OVS* and none of *Y-Daq X-vo' OVS.* The answer to your question is "that's just the way it is."
For me, a leading -Daq would be the location where the whole [-vo' -Daq chegh] is taking place. HoD - [nuqDaq beq? yuQ ghoSta''a'?] yaS - [jISovchu'be'. yuQ ghoSlaw'] yuQ ghoS HoD. beq nej. Meanwhile... DujDaq puchpa'vo' vutpa'Daq chegh beq. - DloraH
On 8/10/2017 7:13 PM, DloraH wrote:
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 12:25 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 8/10/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: ... * *
What I'm trying to understand (and the more this thread continues, the "trying" becomes "struggling"), is why -as De'vID wrote- "the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}". I don't know anything about there being a REASON it can only work that way. What I know is what Voragh has already pointed out: we have many canonical examples of*X-vo' Y-Daq OVS* and none of *Y-Daq X-vo' OVS.* The answer to your question is "that's just the way it is." For me, a leading -Daq would be the location where the whole [-vo' -Daq chegh] is taking place.
HoD - [nuqDaq beq? yuQ ghoSta''a'?] yaS - [jISovchu'be'. yuQ ghoSlaw'] yuQ ghoS HoD. beq nej.
Meanwhile... DujDaq puchpa'vo' vutpa'Daq chegh beq.
I don't think you'd even need to appeal to three syntactic nouns to do that: *DujDaq puchpa'vo' chegh*/on the ship, he returns from the bathroom./ There's probably some scoping rules baked into our language-using brains that does this. No way to tell if Klingons do the same. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 19:20 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 8/10/2017 7:13 PM, DloraH wrote:
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 12:25 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 8/10/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: ... * *
What I'm trying to understand (and the more this thread continues, the "trying" becomes "struggling"), is why -as De'vID wrote- "the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}". I don't know anything about there being a REASON it can only work that way. What I know is what Voragh has already pointed out: we have many canonical examples of*X-vo' Y-Daq OVS* and none of *Y-Daq X-vo' OVS.* The answer to your question is "that's just the way it is." For me, a leading -Daq would be the location where the whole [-vo' -Daq chegh] is taking place.
HoD - [nuqDaq beq? yuQ ghoSta''a'?] yaS - [jISovchu'be'. yuQ ghoSlaw'] yuQ ghoS HoD. beq nej.
Meanwhile... DujDaq puchpa'vo' vutpa'Daq chegh beq.
I don't think you'd even need to appeal to three syntactic nouns to do that: *DujDaq puchpa'vo' chegh*/on the ship, he returns from the bathroom./ There's probably some scoping rules baked into our language-using brains that does this. No way to tell if Klingons do the same.
But you left out the part about returning "to the galley". I put the DujDaq on there to emphasis that the crewman is still on the ship; as opposed to returning from a toilet to a galley, in some building down on the planet.
On 8/10/2017 7:39 PM, DloraH wrote:
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 19:20 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 8/10/2017 7:13 PM, DloraH wrote:
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 12:25 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 8/10/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: ... * *
What I'm trying to understand (and the more this thread continues, the "trying" becomes "struggling"), is why -as De'vID wrote- "the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}". I don't know anything about there being a REASON it can only work that way. What I know is what Voragh has already pointed out: we have many canonical examples of*X-vo' Y-Daq OVS* and none of *Y-Daq X-vo' OVS.* The answer to your question is "that's just the way it is." For me, a leading -Daq would be the location where the whole [-vo' -Daq chegh] is taking place.
HoD - [nuqDaq beq? yuQ ghoSta''a'?] yaS - [jISovchu'be'. yuQ ghoSlaw'] yuQ ghoS HoD. beq nej.
Meanwhile... DujDaq puchpa'vo' vutpa'Daq chegh beq. I don't think you'd even need to appeal to three syntactic nouns to do that:*DujDaq puchpa'vo' chegh*/on the ship, he returns from the bathroom./ There's probably some scoping rules baked into our language-using brains that does this. No way to tell if Klingons do the same. But you left out the part about returning "to the galley".
I put the DujDaq on there to emphasis that the crewman is still on the ship; as opposed to returning from a toilet to a galley, in some building down on the planet.
I left it out for exactly the reason I stated: you don't need it to see what the role of *X-Daq Y-vo'**V* seems to be when X is of a greater scope than Y. I wasn't continuing to describe your scenario. You're talking about the crew of a ship. First you talk about the landing party. Then you say *DujDaq puchpa'vo' chegh HoD*/on the ship, the captain returns from the bathroom./ This is unlikely to be interpreted as /the captain returns to the ship from the bathroom./ Thanks to the apparent scoping of syntactic nouns, you need to see *X-vo' Y-Daq* to interpret them in the same scope, /from X to Y./ In the other order, *Y-Daq X-vo',* it FEELS like Y has a different precedence than X. /On/at/in Y, something happens from X./ Again, we have no evidence of this; it's just some implicit scoping that we have trouble ignoring. It's probably evidence of English bias. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 11 August 2017 at 01:54, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I left it out for exactly the reason I stated: you don't need it to see what the role of X-Daq Y-vo' V seems to be when X is of a greater scope than Y. I wasn't continuing to describe your scenario.
This was the point I was trying to make with my sentences, which in retrospect were more complicated than necessary to illustrate the point. {vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq chegh} "he/she returns from the Great Hall to Earth" {tera'Daq vaS'a'vo' chegh} does this mean "on Earth, he/she returns from the Great Hall" or "he/she returns to Earth from the Great Hall"? The latter feels like it's saying that {vaS'a'} is located on Earth. WIth {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh}, this ambiguity does not exist. -- De'vID
On Aug 10, 2017 17:06, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: On 8/10/2017 10:38 AM, De'vID wrote:
How would you write "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth"?
tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qach vaS'a'vo' chegh ghunchu'wI' is right: you can't put those type 5 suffixes in the middle of this. Why not? It's not a noun-noun construction, it's a chain of locatives. I think multiple locatives is like multiple adverbials: there hasn't been a canon example, but nothing forbids it (unless there's a rule I've overlooked). -- De'vID
On 8/10/2017 11:43 AM, De'vID wrote:
On Aug 10, 2017 17:06, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 8/10/2017 10:38 AM, De'vID wrote:
How would you write "he returns from the great hall at the Federation command centre on Earth"?
tera' DIvI' ra'ghom qach vaS'a'vo' chegh
ghunchu'wI' is right: you can't put those type 5 suffixes in the middle of this.
Why not? It's not a noun-noun construction, it's a chain of locatives. I think multiple locatives is like multiple adverbials: there hasn't been a canon example, but nothing forbids it (unless there's a rule I've overlooked).
You wrote: *[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh** **[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh* Your brackets show locatives and froms affecting entire phrases that include other locatives or froms. This is exactly what the noun-noun restriction prohibits. You can't say this any more than you can say *mIvDaq yIHvo'*//to mean /from the tribble [that is] in the helmet./ The phrase **mIvDaq yIH* itself is illegal. A syntactic noun cannot be the genitive to a head noun. At best, *mIvDaq yIHvo'* can mean /in the helmet, from the tribble,/ but there is absolutely no connection (no genitive relationship) between the tribble and the helmet. The two words might happen to sit next to each other in a larger sentence, but they have no direct relationship. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 10.08.2017 um 18:13 schrieb SuStel:
You wrote:
*[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh** **[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh*
Your brackets show locatives and froms affecting entire phrases that include other locatives or froms. This is exactly what the noun-noun restriction prohibits. You can't say this any more than you can say *mIvDaq yIHvo'*//to mean /from the tribble [that is] in the helmet./ The phrase **mIvDaq yIH* itself is illegal. A syntactic noun cannot be the genitive to a head noun. At best, *mIvDaq yIHvo'* can mean /in the helmet, from the tribble,/ but there is absolutely no connection (no genitive relationship) between the tribble and the helmet. The two words might happen to sit next to each other in a larger sentence, but they have no direct relationship.
I agree with SuStel. (I really do) There is this canon example {naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaH} which really is a list of adverbials, not a noun-noun construction. You may split it: {naDevvo' majaH} 'ej {vaS'a'Daq majaH}. I think one may even say that the one locative refers to the following sentence: {naDevvo' [vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH]} or with SuStel's cat: {mIvDaq [yIHvo' jIghoS]} - It means "In the hat, I go away from the cat" but not "I go away from the [cat-in-the-hat]" What your mistake was, is using multiple {-Daq} in the sense of "in/at" {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a'} "from [Hall in [house in earth]]" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 10 August 2017 at 18:13, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/10/2017 11:43 AM, De'vID wrote: You wrote:
[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh
Your brackets show locatives and froms affecting entire phrases that include other locatives or froms. This is exactly what the noun-noun restriction prohibits. You can't say this any more than you can say mIvDaq yIHvo' to mean from the tribble [that is] in the helmet. The phrase *mIvDaq yIH itself is illegal. A syntactic noun cannot be the genitive to a head noun. At best, mIvDaq yIHvo' can mean in the helmet, from the tribble, but there is absolutely no connection (no genitive relationship) between the tribble and the helmet. The two words might happen to sit next to each other in a larger sentence, but they have no direct relationship.
Point taken. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'. Would you accept a chain of {-Daq}s and {-vo'}s like this? {Qo'noSvo' vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'vo' DIvI' ra'ghom qachvo' vaS'a'vo' chegh} -- De'vID
On 8/10/2017 1:09 PM, De'vID wrote:
Would you accept a chain of {-Daq}s and {-vo'}s like this?
{Qo'noSvo' vaS'a'vo' tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq chegh} {tera'vo' DIvI' ra'ghom qachvo' vaS'a'vo' chegh}
/He returns from Kronos, from the Great Hall, to Earth, to the Federation command staff building./ /He returns from Earth, from the Federation command staff building, from the Great Hall./ I accept them as grammatical, and meaning what I have written. Whether or not that's what you wanted them to mean, I don't know. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 10 August 2017 at 14:07, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:38 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
...Consider the following: {[vaS'a']vo' [tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach]Daq chegh} {[tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qachDaq vaS'a']vo' chegh}
Qo'.
You seem to be suggesting that we parse {tera'Daq DIvI' ra'ghom qach} and {tera'Daq DIvI' raghom qachDaq vaS'a'} as noun phrases bearing a Type 5 suffix on the final noun. However, that treatment violates the prohibition of a Type 5 suffix on the first noun of such a phrase.
I will not consider them further.
That's not what I intended to suggest. I'm trying to get mayqel qunenoS to see why the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}. -- De'vID
De'vID is right. There are several known examples of {X-vo' Y-Daq [MOTION VERB]}: naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a' Can we get to the Great Hall from here? PK juHqo' Qo'noSvo' loghDaq lengtaHvIS tlhInganpu' During the (aggressive) expansion of the Klingon people from their homeworld of Kronos into space... SP1 'Iw bIQtIqvo' toS SuvwI' yoH puH QaDDaq paw The fearless warrior climbs out of the blood onto dry land. PB betleHvo' qotar mInDu' mIghDaq boch 'otlh Light reflects off the bat'leth into Fek'lhr's evil eyes. PB [sic! For{ veqlargh mInDu'}] tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq jIlengpu' I've traveled all over the place (Idiom) (st.k 11/21/1999) (st.k 11/21/1999) : A more archaic form of the idiom is {tIngvo' 'evDaq 'evvo' chanDaq} (literally, "from area-southwestward to area-northwestward, from area-northwestward to area eastward"), but the three-word version (without the repetition of {'ev}) has all but totally replaced it. I know of no examples with the reverse {Y-Daq X-vo' [MOTION VERB]} -- though I haven't checked the paq'batlh. --Voragh ------------------------------Original Message---------------------------------- From: De'vID That's not what I intended to suggest. I'm trying to get mayqel qunenoS to see why the pattern is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}. -- De'vID _______________________________________________
participants (10)
-
Alan Anderson -
Anthony Appleyard -
De'vID -
DloraH -
Jeremy Silver -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel