how is the {mapIm ngIq maH} correct ?
Read the following non-Ca'Non sentence from dsc: dsc "Battle at the Binary Stars"
{mapIm ngIq maH 'e' luQaw'meH ghoS chaH} They come to destroy our individuality.
I know that this sentence is non-Ca'Non, but there's something I wonder.. Isn't the {ngIq maH} third person ? So, how can we have the {ma-} on the {pIm} ? Doesn't this violate the accord rule, or however the @!#! you call it, when the verb prefix doesn't agree with its' subject ? ~ bara'qa'
On 10/2/2019 7:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Read the following non-Ca'Non sentence from dsc:
dsc "Battle at the Binary Stars"
{mapIm ngIq maH 'e' luQaw'meH ghoS chaH} They come to destroy our individuality. I know that this sentence is non-Ca'Non, but there's something I wonder..
Isn't the {ngIq maH} third person ? So, how can we have the {ma-} on the {pIm} ?
Doesn't this violate the accord rule, or however the @!#! you call it, when the verb prefix doesn't agree with its' subject ?
As with all noun-noun constructions, it's the final noun in the series that determines what "thing" you're talking about. Here, *maH* is acting like a noun and is the final noun. So the phrase *ngIq maH* /each of us individually/ is in the first person. We're talking about /us./ What kind of /us?/ The /taken-as-individuals us./ *mapIm ngIq maH* is correct. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
As with all noun-noun constructions, it's the final noun in the series that determines what "thing" you're talking about. Here, maH is acting like a noun and is the final noun. So the phrase ngIq maH each of us individually is in the first person.
So, I guess one could say too {Hoch maH} for "all us". So, I could say too {tlhIngan Hol wIparHa' Hoch maH}, for "we all like klingon". Right ? - bara'qa'
On 10/2/2019 10:37 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
As with all noun-noun constructions, it's the final noun in the series that determines what "thing" you're talking about. Here, maH is acting like a noun and is the final noun. So the phrase ngIq maH each of us individually is in the first person.
So, I guess one could say too {Hoch maH} for "all us".
So, I could say too {tlhIngan Hol wIparHa' Hoch maH}, for "we all like klingon".
Right ?
Maybe. But what does *Hoch maH* actually mean? Sure, the English translation of *Hoch* and *maH* are /all/ and /us,/ but when you put them together, what do they mean? After all, you said /we all/ instead of /all we./ *Hoch X* means you take the set of X's and consider each one as separately doing the action. *Hoch Xmey/Du'/pu'* means you take the set of X's and consider them as doing the action collectively. But what if X is a mass noun? Suppose you say *Hoch bIQ.* You're considering each water separately doing the action? You can say *bIQ Hoch* to mean the entirety of the water, but that's got *Hoch* as the "thing" of the noun-noun construction. So go back to *Hoch maH.* Do you take the set of /us-es/ as each /us /performing the action? Do you take the set of all /us-es/ as performing the action collectively? Shouldn't you instead use *maH Hoch* /the entirety of us,/ which is a third-person phrase? Klingons may or may not say *Hoch maH,* but you can't clearly derive it by any grammatical rules we already know. The individual words translation individually into something we'd say in English, but that's not how translation really works. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:52 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
So go back to *Hoch maH.* Do you take the set of *us-es* as each *us *performing the action? Do you take the set of all *us-es* as performing the action collectively? Shouldn't you instead use *maH Hoch* *the entirety of us,* which is a third-person phrase?
And once you've got *maH Hoch*, you can go all the way to *Hochma'*.
On 10/2/2019 10:58 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:52 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
So go back to *Hoch maH.* Do you take the set of /us-es/ as each /us /performing the action? Do you take the set of all /us-es/ as performing the action collectively? Shouldn't you instead use *maH Hoch* /the entirety of us,/ which is a third-person phrase?
And once you've got *maH Hoch*, you can go all the way to *Hochma'*.
No you can't — unless you come from Sakrej. *maH Hoch* is not a *Hoch* that is possessed by *maH.* As we see with "area" nouns, they don't get "possessed" by the pronouns modifying them: *jIH tlhop*/area in front of me/ (not *tlhopwIj*), and so on. I don't possess the area in front of me; the area in front is being identified as the one associated with me. This is a non-possessive, genitive relationship. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
So go back to Hoch maH. Do you take the set of us-es as each us performing the action?
ok, I understand this argument. But here is what confuses me: Couldn't the {maH} in the {Hoch maH} construction, be understood as describing lets say ten klingons, thus making the {maH} equivalent to a plural noun ? If context made it clear, that there are only ten klingons, then wouldn't we have: maH = ten klingons ? So, if we can say {Hoch tlhInganpu'} to say "all klingons", then why not say {Hoch maH} for "all (of) us" ? ~ bara'qa'
On 10/2/2019 11:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
So go back to Hoch maH. Do you take the set of us-es as each us performing the action?
ok, I understand this argument.
But here is what confuses me:
Couldn't the {maH} in the {Hoch maH} construction, be understood as describing lets say ten klingons, thus making the {maH} equivalent to a plural noun ?
If context made it clear, that there are only ten klingons, then wouldn't we have: maH = ten klingons ?
So, if we can say {Hoch tlhInganpu'} to say "all klingons", then why not say {Hoch maH} for "all (of) us" ?
Any given *maH* may happen to refer to ten Klingons, but it is not grammatically equivalent to saying *wa'maH tlhInganpu'.* *maH* and *tlhInganpu'* are grammatically very different. Watch that logic fail: If we can consider *maH* to refer to ten Klingons, and if we can say *HoDpu' maH* /We are captains,/ then does it follow that we can say *HoDpu' tlhInganpu'?* Please remember my conclusion. It's not "*Hoch maH* is definitely wrong"; it's "*Hoch maH* can't be clearly derived from grammatical rules." There are issues, confounded by a superficial similarity to the English equivalent. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
No you can't — unless you come from Sakrej. *maH Hoch* is not a *Hoch* that is possessed by *maH.* As we see with "area" nouns, they don't get "possessed" by the pronouns modifying them: *jIH tlhop** area in front of me* (not *tlhopwIj*), and so on. I don't possess the area in front of me; the area in front is being identified as the one associated with me. This is a non-possessive, genitive relationship.
The *jIH tlhop* vs. *tlhopwIj* issue isn't presented as a general grammar rule applying to certain genitive relationships. It's just presented as a weird thing you do with locative nouns. It doesn't even apply to all locative nouns. The compass direction nouns are an explicit exception, even in the standard dialect. "My east, area to my east" is *chanwIj* is the standard dialect, even though I don't own the area to my east. The same applies to *tIng* and *'ev*. In the standard dialect of Klingon ({ta' Hol}) and in most other dialects,
the locative nouns (or nouns of location, or nouns expressing prepositional concepts) do not take possessive suffixes, while in the dialect of the Sakrej region, they do. The directional nouns ({chan}, {'ev}, {tIng}), on the other hand, take possessive suffixes in all dialects (or at least in all dialects studied to date).
http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-12-holqed-08-4-a.txt That article goes on to mention that you can say *jIH chan*, but that the difference is in terms of emphasis ("MY east"), rather than in the nature of the genitive relationship.
On 10/2/2019 11:46 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
No you can't — unless you come from Sakrej. *maH Hoch* is not a *Hoch* that is possessed by *maH.* As we see with "area" nouns, they don't get "possessed" by the pronouns modifying them: *jIH tlhop*/area in front of me/ (not *tlhopwIj*), and so on. I don't possess the area in front of me; the area in front is being identified as the one associated with me. This is a non-possessive, genitive relationship.
The *jIH tlhop* vs. *tlhopwIj* issue isn't presented as a general grammar rule applying to certain genitive relationships. It's just presented as a weird thing you do with locative nouns. It doesn't even apply to all locative nouns. The compass direction nouns are an explicit exception, even in the standard dialect. "My east, area to my east" is *chanwIj* is the standard dialect, even though I don't own the area to my east. The same applies to *tIng* and *'ev*.
In the standard dialect of Klingon ({ta' Hol}) and in most other dialects, the locative nouns (or nouns of location, or nouns expressing prepositional concepts) do not take possessive suffixes, while in the dialect of the Sakrej region, they do. The directional nouns ({chan}, {'ev}, {tIng}), on the other hand, take possessive suffixes in all dialects (or at least in all dialects studied to date).
http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-12-holqed-08-4-a.txt
That article goes on to mention that you can say *jIH chan*, but that the difference is in terms of emphasis ("MY east"), rather than in the nature of the genitive relationship.
Please feel free to say *pIm Hochma'* if you like. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:14 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
As with all noun-noun constructions, it's the final noun in the series that determines what "thing" you're talking about. Here, *maH* is acting like a noun and is the final noun. So the phrase *ngIq maH* *each of us individually* is in the first person. We're talking about *us.* What kind of *us?* The *taken-as-individuals us.* *mapIm ngIq maH* is correct.
I'm not sure *ngIq maH* is quite correct for *each of us individually* in this case. So far in canon, *ngIq* seems to have only been used with singular nouns. To me, if we applied the examples strictly, *ngIq maH* would mean something like *each group-of-us individually*, as if there were multiple groups of "us" ("us-es") and we were considering each group of "us" one by one. In that one TNG episode that ends with a couple hundred Enterprises from parallel universes appearing, each with their own Picards and Rikers and Worfs and so on, it might make sense for the Enterprise crew to refer to multiple groups of "us" like that. On the other hand, there are still some questions about how to talk about things like "each of us" or "all of you" and so on. Maybe with a plural noun, *ngIq* can mean "each of the things that make up the plurality" rather than "each of the plural groups", so *ngIq maH* would mean what it's supposed to mean. Whatever *ngIq maH* means, and whether it's the correct way to write *each of us*, *maH* would still be the head noun of the phrase, so it would make sense to have a *ma-* prefix on the verb. (Incidentally, was there ever any traction on adding grammar question requests to the qep'a' *chabal tetlhmey*, like we have with vocabulary?)
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel