the {nargh} the other {nargh} and the {-vo'}
So, we have: {nargh} (v) to appear {nargh} (v) to escape When I first saw these words I thought: wejpuH.. using them, won't there be confusion ? Then I came to the conclusion, that in order to eliminate the possibility of confusion we could use the {-vo'}. At another thread I wrote: {qatlho'qu' voragh ! choQaHta'mo' ghe''or vInarghpu'} thank you voragh ! because you helped me, I escaped hell} Now, I don't disagree; at this example noone could misunderstand "escaped" for "appeared". But be that as it may, why not use a nice {-vo'}, in order to express ourselves more clearly ? {qatlho'qu' voragh ! choQaHta'mo' ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} thank you voragh ! because you helped me, from hell I escaped} milk and cookies road trip and music {nargh} and {-vo'} ! qunnoH jan puqloD
Am 21.11.2016 um 18:27 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
Then I came to the conclusion, that in order to eliminate the possibility of confusion we could use the {-vo'}.
That's a good idea. Have you seen 'ISqu's phrase in the HolQeD wordplay contest? {mo'Dajvo' pa'wIjDaq je narghpu' He'So'bogh SajlIj} "Your stinking pet has escaped from its cage and appeared in my quarters." http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/WordplayContest
But be that as it may, why not use a nice {-vo'}, in order to express ourselves more clearly ?
{qatlho'qu' voragh ! choQaHta'mo' ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} thank you voragh ! because you helped me, from hell I escaped}
Well, then the place is not the object, so I'd use {jI-} on nargh. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
lieven:
Have you seen 'ISqu's phrase in the HolQeD wordplay contest?
I didn't know that, thanks !
{mo'Dajvo' pa'wIjDaq je narghpu' He'So'bogh SajlIj}
I knew of using {-vo'} and {-Daq} at the beginning of a sentence, in order to express the "from ---> to"; but somehow I had the idea that the two nouns can't be joined by the {je}. If this sentence is correct (is it ?) I will be happy to assimilate this knowledge. jIH:
qatlho'qu' voragh ! choQaHta'mo' ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} thank you voragh ! because you helped me, from hell I escaped} lieven: Well, then the place is not the object, so I'd use {jI-} on nargh.
hmm.. I didn't know that. can't {nargh} "to escape" have an object ? as in "I escaped hell" ? qunnoH jan puqloD On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 21.11.2016 um 18:27 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
Then I came to the conclusion, that in order to eliminate the possibility of confusion we could use the {-vo'}.
That's a good idea. Have you seen 'ISqu's phrase in the HolQeD wordplay contest?
{mo'Dajvo' pa'wIjDaq je narghpu' He'So'bogh SajlIj} "Your stinking pet has escaped from its cage and appeared in my quarters."
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/WordplayContest
But be that as it may, why not use a nice {-vo'}, in order to express ourselves more clearly ?
{qatlho'qu' voragh ! choQaHta'mo' ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} thank you voragh ! because you helped me, from hell I escaped}
Well, then the place is not the object, so I'd use {jI-} on nargh.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/21/2016 12:51 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
{mo'Dajvo' pa'wIjDaq je narghpu' He'So'bogh SajlIj} I knew of using {-vo'} and {-Daq} at the beginning of a sentence, in order to express the "from ---> to"; but somehow I had the idea that the two nouns can't be joined by the {je}. If this sentence is correct (is it ?) I will be happy to assimilate this knowledge.
There's no rule against it. There's a theoretical reason not to do it, which is not demonstrated one way or another in canon so far as I know: it might make sense if you cannot stylistically join nouns of dissimilar syntactic roles. We have seen /not/ conjoining nouns of dissimilar role: *naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a' */Can we get to the Great Hall from here?/ (CK) (Notice that this sentence seems to violate the later revelations by Okrand of the workings of verbs of motion, like *jaH*.)
jIH:
qatlho'qu' voragh ! choQaHta'mo' ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} thank you voragh ! because you helped me, from hell I escaped} lieven: Well, then the place is not the object, so I'd use {jI-} on nargh. hmm.. I didn't know that. can't {nargh} "to escape" have an object ? as in "I escaped hell" ?
You can either say *ghe''orvo' jInarghpu'*/I escaped from Grethor/ or *ghe''or vInarghpu'*/I escaped Grethor./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
You can either say ghe''orvo' jInarghpu' I escaped from Grethor or ghe''or vInarghpu' I escaped Grethor.
hmm.. now I started to wonder.. walk with me.. bIQ'a' HeHDaq jIjaH the "going" takes place at the shore bIQ'a' HeH vIjaH I am going to the shore bIQ'a' HeHDaq vIjaH I am going to the shore (same as above, with the {-Daq} being unnecessary but not wrong) if the above are correct, and the {nargh} "to escape" is to be treated as a verb of movement, then why not: {ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} ? cpt qunnoq On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:23 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/21/2016 12:51 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
{mo'Dajvo' pa'wIjDaq je narghpu' He'So'bogh SajlIj}
I knew of using {-vo'} and {-Daq} at the beginning of a sentence, in order to express the "from ---> to"; but somehow I had the idea that the two nouns can't be joined by the {je}. If this sentence is correct (is it ?) I will be happy to assimilate this knowledge.
There's no rule against it. There's a theoretical reason not to do it, which is not demonstrated one way or another in canon so far as I know: it might make sense if you cannot stylistically join nouns of dissimilar syntactic roles.
We have seen not conjoining nouns of dissimilar role:
naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a' Can we get to the Great Hall from here? (CK)
(Notice that this sentence seems to violate the later revelations by Okrand of the workings of verbs of motion, like jaH.)
jIH:
qatlho'qu' voragh ! choQaHta'mo' ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} thank you voragh ! because you helped me, from hell I escaped}
lieven:
Well, then the place is not the object, so I'd use {jI-} on nargh.
hmm.. I didn't know that. can't {nargh} "to escape" have an object ? as in "I escaped hell" ?
You can either say ghe''orvo' jInarghpu' I escaped from Grethor or ghe''or vInarghpu' I escaped Grethor.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/21/2016 1:34 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
You can either say ghe''orvo' jInarghpu' I escaped from Grethor or ghe''or vInarghpu' I escaped Grethor. hmm.. now I started to wonder.. walk with me..
bIQ'a' HeHDaq jIjaH the "going" takes place at the shore
bIQ'a' HeH vIjaH I am going to the shore
bIQ'a' HeHDaq vIjaH I am going to the shore (same as above, with the {-Daq} being unnecessary but not wrong)
if the above are correct, and the {nargh} "to escape" is to be treated as a verb of movement, then why not: {ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} ?
I don't think *nargh* is a verb of movement. But even if it were, notice the difference between *-Daq* and *-vo'*: *-Daq* has two senses: /going//to/ a place or /being//at/ a place. *-vo'* has only one sense: /going from/ a place. It doesn't seem to have a corresponding meaning of /being away from/ a place. When you say *vaS'a'Daq jIjaH,* the special rules of verbs of motion mean you're forced to pick just one of the usual *-Daq* meanings: /being at/ a place. This makes it mean something like, /at the Great Hall, I go./ But *jaH* can also take an object that represents the destination. *vaS'a' vIjaH* /I go to the Great Hall./ The/to/ meaning is inherent to the verb. So adding *-Daq* to that noun doesn't change the inherent /to/ of the verb, forcing you into the meaning of /to /a place. The reason you can add *-Daq* to the object of such words, even though that doesn't seem to happen with other words, is that the /to/ is already built in. You're just making explicit what comes inherently with the verb. But *-vo'* does not seem to be inherent in verbs of motion, at least not as Okrand presented them. When he was describing the verb *leng,* he gave us *yuQ vIlegh* and *yuQDaq vIlegh* /I travel to the planet,/*yuQvo' jIleng*/I roam away from the planet,/ and *yuQDaq jIleng*/I roam around/about the planet./ He conspicuously doesn't give us **yuQvo' vIleng.* His example *yuQvo' jIleng* apparently doesn't mean /I roam in a place away from the planet./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Another idea, unrelated to the syntactic workings of {nargh}: maybe they're in fact not 2 distinct homophonic verbs, but one verb with 2 quite different translations in English. Escaping and appearing might just be different viewpoints of the same action, just like "come" and "go" are both {ghoS} or {jaH} and context (often {-vo'} decides how to interpret it. Klingon isn't the only language which does that. One of the languages of Burma that I am working on (Jinghpaw, pronounced exactly like {jIngpo'} in Klingon by the way!) also only has one word "sa" to mean both 'come' and 'go'. So perhaps {nargh} describes the concept of suddenly changing its state of presence. One can, sort of, appear to a place, or away from a place. Or a thing might suddenly escape from nowhere into sight, and then suddenly escape out of your sight again. - André 2016-11-21 21:02 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 11/21/2016 1:34 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
You can either say ghe''orvo' jInarghpu' I escaped> from Grethor or ghe''or vInarghpu' I escaped Grethor.
hmm.. now I started to wonder.. walk with me..
bIQ'a' HeHDaq jIjaH the "going" takes place at the shore
bIQ'a' HeH vIjaH I am going to the shore
bIQ'a' HeHDaq vIjaH I am going to the shore (same as above, with the {-Daq} being unnecessary but not wrong)
if the above are correct, and the {nargh} "to escape" is to be treated as a verb of movement, then why not: {ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} ?
I don't think *nargh* is a verb of movement. But even if it were, notice the difference between *-Daq* and *-vo'*:
*-Daq* has two senses: *going** to* a place or *being** at* a place. *-vo'* has only one sense: *going from* a place. It doesn't seem to have a corresponding meaning of *being away from* a place.
When you say *vaS'a'Daq jIjaH,* the special rules of verbs of motion mean you're forced to pick just one of the usual *-Daq* meanings: *being at* a place. This makes it mean something like, *at the Great Hall, I go.* But *jaH* can also take an object that represents the destination. *vaS'a' vIjaH* *I go to the Great Hall.* The* to* meaning is inherent to the verb. So adding *-Daq* to that noun doesn't change the inherent *to* of the verb, forcing you into the meaning of *to *a place.
The reason you can add *-Daq* to the object of such words, even though that doesn't seem to happen with other words, is that the *to* is already built in. You're just making explicit what comes inherently with the verb.
But *-vo'* does not seem to be inherent in verbs of motion, at least not as Okrand presented them. When he was describing the verb *leng,* he gave us *yuQ vIlegh* and *yuQDaq vIlegh* *I travel to the planet,** yuQvo' jIleng** I roam away from the planet,* and *yuQDaq jIleng** I roam around/about the planet.* He conspicuously doesn't give us **yuQvo' vIleng.* His example *yuQvo' jIleng* apparently doesn't mean *I roam in a place away from the planet.*
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/21/2016 7:56 PM, André Müller wrote:
Another idea, unrelated to the syntactic workings of {nargh}: maybe they're in fact not 2 distinct homophonic verbs, but one verb with 2 quite different translations in English. Escaping and appearing might just be different viewpoints of the same action, just like "come" and "go" are both {ghoS} or {jaH} and context (often {-vo'} decides how to interpret it. Klingon isn't the only language which does that. One of the languages of Burma that I am working on (Jinghpaw, pronounced exactly like {jIngpo'} in Klingon by the way!) also only has one word "sa" to mean both 'come' and 'go'.
So perhaps {nargh} describes the concept of suddenly changing its state of presence. One can, sort of, appear to a place, or away from a place. Or a thing might suddenly escape from nowhere into sight, and then suddenly escape out of your sight again.
Okrand himself has floated this suggestion, in /The Klingon Way, /p. 145: *When a warrior dies, his spirit escapes.* *HeghDI' SuvwI' nargh SuvwI' qa'* When a Klingon dies, it is thought that his spirit leaves his body and goes to join the spirits of other dead Klingons. This is marked in the Klingon Death Ritual when the surviving comrades howl—a warning to the dead that a warrior's spirit is on its way. The body, once the spirit has left it, is considered a worthless shell and is discarded unceremoniously. Exactly what Klingons think the spirit is doing when it leaves the body is a little unclear. The verb *"nargh,"* found in the saying cited above, means "escape," but the same word, or a phonetically identical one, means "appear." Thus, perhaps the Klingons are saying that when a warrior dies, his spirit appears, whereas prior to death it was hidden or disguised by the body. Another interpretation is that the spirit was held prisoner by the body. Worf told Jeremy, whose mother had been killed, "In my tradition, we do not grieve the loss of the body. We celebrate the releasing of the spirit." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Ah nice, thanks, I had forgotten about that part! - André 2016-11-22 2:41 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 11/21/2016 7:56 PM, André Müller wrote:
Another idea, unrelated to the syntactic workings of {nargh}: maybe they're in fact not 2 distinct homophonic verbs, but one verb with 2 quite different translations in English. Escaping and appearing might just be different viewpoints of the same action, just like "come" and "go" are both {ghoS} or {jaH} and context (often {-vo'} decides how to interpret it. Klingon isn't the only language which does that. One of the languages of Burma that I am working on (Jinghpaw, pronounced exactly like {jIngpo'} in Klingon by the way!) also only has one word "sa" to mean both 'come' and 'go'.
So perhaps {nargh} describes the concept of suddenly changing its state of presence. One can, sort of, appear to a place, or away from a place. Or a thing might suddenly escape from nowhere into sight, and then suddenly escape out of your sight again.
Okrand himself has floated this suggestion, in *The Klingon Way, *p. 145:
*When a warrior dies, his spirit escapes.*
*HeghDI' SuvwI' nargh SuvwI' qa'*
When a Klingon dies, it is thought that his spirit leaves his body and goes to join the spirits of other dead Klingons. This is marked in the Klingon Death Ritual when the surviving comrades howl—a warning to the dead that a warrior's spirit is on its way. The body, once the spirit has left it, is considered a worthless shell and is discarded unceremoniously. Exactly what Klingons think the spirit is doing when it leaves the body is a little unclear. The verb *"nargh,"* found in the saying cited above, means "escape," but the same word, or a phonetically identical one, means "appear." Thus, perhaps the Klingons are saying that when a warrior dies, his spirit appears, whereas prior to death it was hidden or disguised by the body. Another interpretation is that the spirit was held prisoner by the body. Worf told Jeremy, whose mother had been killed, "In my tradition, we do not grieve the loss of the body. We celebrate the releasing of the spirit."
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 21 November 2016 at 19:23, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/21/2016 12:51 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
{mo'Dajvo' pa'wIjDaq je narghpu' He'So'bogh SajlIj}
I knew of using {-vo'} and {-Daq} at the beginning of a sentence, in order to express the "from ---> to"; but somehow I had the idea that the two nouns can't be joined by the {je}. If this sentence is correct (is it ?) I will be happy to assimilate this knowledge.
The SkyBox cards have the following notice, so {je} can join nouns marked with a type-5 suffix: {Paramount Pictures malja' permey bIH Star Trek pong'e' Deghmey'e' je} But note that the {je} here is joining two nouns with the same suffix.
There's no rule against it. There's a theoretical reason not to do it, which is not demonstrated one way or another in canon so far as I know: it might make sense if you cannot stylistically join nouns of dissimilar syntactic roles.
Or maybe you can join certain pairs when it makes sense, like {-vo'} and {-Daq}, and even then it's seen as a slight bending of the rules. Most of the time, sticking a {je} on {Xvo' YDaq} would only change the emphasis and not the meaning, "it went from A and to B" vs. "it went from A to B". -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
André Müller -
De'vID -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel