On Apr 3, 2019, at 07:47, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

{QaptaHvIS So'wI', Hoch jagh Dujmey DaQotlh} disable all enemy ships while cloaked

First question: Does anyone disagree, that instead of Da- there should be tI- ?

If the sentence in English is definitely an imperative and not an indicative, then {tI-} would make sense. However, there’s no reason to believe it’s an imperative, in the absence of further context. If the Klingon sentence has said {yIQotlh}, I’d agree it should probably be {tI-}, but {Da-} works for singular and plural third person objects.

Second question..

How exactly is the {Hoch jagh Dujmey} to be interpreted ?

I think the context makes {Hoch (jagh Dujmey)} the most natural interpretation, but {(Hoch jagh) Dujmey} seems like another possible one. {Hoch (jagh) Dujmey} seems weird, but rewording that to {(jagh) Hoch Dujmey} seems weird too.

If that really is a direct quote, then the lowercase “disable all enemy ships while cloaked” with no uppercase first letter and no period at the end suggests some missing context, since that’s not how we write English sentences. We don’t have enough context to know if it is a command or a mere description. As for {Hoch jagh Dujmey}, I rather consistently tend to interpret any number needing to go before the pair of genitive-linked nouns — you can’t put the number in the middle — and it generally tends to apply to the second noun. Why? Because a noun-noun construction essentially turns the first noun into an identifier or descriptor for the second noun. It’s a phrase, and it’s all about the second noun. The first noun and the number or {Hoch} or whatever are all part of the phrase identifying or describing the second noun. As a language, Klingon tends to be about verbs. You have a Main Verb (the core of the Main Clause), and you might have one or more Dependent Clauses, each with a verb at its core and other words wrapped around the clause’s verb. Within the clause, it’s all about the verb. While nouns can’t be the core of a clause the way a verb can be, there is the concept of a “Head Noun” in a Relative Clause. It’s the noun you pay the most attention to, since it’s the one noun that functions in both the Relative Clause and also in the Main Clause. I weirdly see the second noun of a Noun-Noun construction as being something like a Head Noun of the noun phrase. The first noun, and anything else in the phrase is generally connected to the second noun, because this whole phrase exists to enhance the meaning of that one noun while it functions in its clause. In this case, it doesn’t really matter, because the meanings of “all (enemy ships)” and “the ships (of all enemies)” are functionally indistinguishable. You are talking about the same ships in either case. You don’t get a different set of ships if you interpret it one way than you get if you interpret it the other way. Does a ship belong to an enemy? If so, disable it. All of them. I think that efforts to interpret a number or (Hoch} or such as applying to the first noun are more deeply abstract than the grammar intends to go. It would be more interesting with an example like {Hoch tlhIngan jIb Hurgh vIqel}, where you could get all aflutter over whether it means “I consider all of the dark hair of the Klingon”, or “I consider all of the dark Klingon’s hair” or “I consider the dark hair of all Klingons”, or “I consider the hair of all dark Klingons”. Unless someone made the context obvious, I’d always interpret this as “I consider all of the dark hair of the Klingon,” because I pick out “Hair” and interpret everything else as describing or identifying it. It’s the second noun of Noun-Noun. It’s the core of that phrase. If I wanted to talk about the hair of all dark Klingons, I’d come up with some other grammar to do it, like {Hoch tlhInganpu’ Hurgh’e’ jIbchaj vIqel}. “As for all dark Klingons, I consider their hair." But that’s just the way I’ve been interpreting it for the past 30 years. It doesn’t mean I’m right. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Apr 3, 2019, at 8:47 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Klingon Monopoly has the sentence:

{QaptaHvIS So'wI', Hoch jagh Dujmey DaQotlh} disable all enemy ships while cloaked

First question: Does anyone disagree, that instead of Da- there should be tI- ?

Second question..

How exactly is the {Hoch jagh Dujmey} to be interpreted ?

(Hoch jagh) Dujmey the ships of each enemy

or

Hoch (jagh Dujmey) all the enemy ships

or

Hoch (jagh) Dujmey all the ships of the enemy (with the Hoch, referring to the Dujmey instead of jagh)

Is there a way of knowing, which of the three is the correct interpretation ? Or do we just use the Force to decide ?

~ m. qunen'oS I find wet dog noses disturbing _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 3. Apr. 2019, 14:53:

Klingon Monopoly has the sentence:

{QaptaHvIS So'wI', Hoch jagh Dujmey DaQotlh} disable all enemy ships while cloaked

First question: Does anyone disagree, that instead of Da- there should be tI- ?

jIQoch. Have you ever played (either regular or Klingon) Monopoly? That sentence is not a command, but a statement. -- De'vID