Another good question (of the ones which have no answer..) If we can say: vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' neH DaSaH you only care that we capture the ancient cat Then why couldn't we say as well: vIghro' tIQ wIjon neH DaneH you only want that we capture the ancient cat ~ qa'yIn
Wouldn’t <vIghro’ tIQ wIjon neH [‘e’] DaneH> be “you want that we just capture the/a ancient cat(s)”? Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 10, 2020, at 08:00, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Another good question (of the ones which have no answer..)
If we can say:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' neH DaSaH you only care that we capture the ancient cat
Then why couldn't we say as well:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon neH DaneH you only want that we capture the ancient cat
~ qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
To add to the original question: we should be asking if before we ask why. Are we specifically prohibited from saying {wIjon neH DaneH}? And if we're not supposed to say this, is it actually a rule or just a stylistic preference? On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:22:31AM -0400, jevreh@qeylis.net wrote:
Wouldn’t <vIghro’ tIQ wIjon neH [‘e’] DaneH> be “you want that we just capture the/a ancient cat(s)”?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 10, 2020, at 08:00, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Another good question (of the ones which have no answer..)
If we can say:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' neH DaSaH you only care that we capture the ancient cat
Then why couldn't we say as well:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon neH DaneH you only want that we capture the ancient cat
~ qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jevreH:
Wouldn’t <vIghro’ tIQ wIjon neH [‘e’] DaneH> be “you want that we just capture the/a ancient cat(s)”?
jevreH, indeed you're right. It would actually mean "you want that we merely capture the ancient cat"; it would mean that "you want that we merely capture it, and not lets say execute it too". I'd totally forgotten about this possibility.. Sa'pIr:
To add to the original question: we should be asking if before we ask why. Are we specifically prohibited from saying {wIjon neH DaneH}? And if we're not supposed to say this, is it actually a rule or just a stylistic preference?
I don't think there's any rule disallowing it. But indeed, as jevreH suggested, it would probably mean "you want that we merely capture the ancient cat". Now, whether it could mean too "you only want that we capture the ancient cat", I wish I knew.. ~ qa'yIn
Given that the prefix is {wI-} and not {DI-}, we know that we are speaking of a single cat. It is confusing that English uses “only” sometimes to mean “exclusively”, and other times to mean “merely”, and Okrand chose to use the word “only” instead of sticking to the more specific “exclusively” or “merely”. It means that we can’t be sure whether the canon examples intentionally or accidentally suggest different meaning depending on whether it follows nouns or verbs. SuStel appropriately assumes it was intentional, since there are apparently no contradictory examples in canon to suggest otherwise, leaving us with a little extra work to do if we want to convey the meaning we don’t have an example for in canon. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 10, 2020, at 8:22 AM, jevreh@qeylis.net wrote:
Wouldn’t <vIghro’ tIQ wIjon neH [‘e’] DaneH> be “you want that we just capture the/a ancient cat(s)”?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 10, 2020, at 08:00, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Another good question (of the ones which have no answer..)
If we can say:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' neH DaSaH you only care that we capture the ancient cat
Then why couldn't we say as well:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon neH DaneH you only want that we capture the ancient cat
~ qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/10/2020 10:04 AM, Will Martin wrote:
It is confusing that English uses “only” sometimes to mean “exclusively”, and other times to mean “merely”, and Okrand chose to use the word “only” instead of sticking to the more specific “exclusively” or “merely”. It means that we can’t be sure whether the canon examples intentionally or accidentally suggest different meaning depending on whether it follows nouns or verbs.
SuStel appropriately assumes it was intentional, since there are apparently no contradictory examples in canon to suggest otherwise, leaving us with a little extra work to do if we want to convey the meaning we don’t have an example for in canon.
No... Okrand says so explicitly in TKD: Unlike the other adverbials, *[neH]* follows the verb which it modifies. The semantic effect is one of trivializing the action. [...] Also unlike the other adverbials, *neH *can follow a noun. In such cases, it means /only, alone./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Perfect. Thanks. I should have checked before speaking, but now, it’s set a bit more solidly in memory. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 10, 2020, at 10:08 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/10/2020 10:04 AM, Will Martin wrote:
It is confusing that English uses “only” sometimes to mean “exclusively”, and other times to mean “merely”, and Okrand chose to use the word “only” instead of sticking to the more specific “exclusively” or “merely”. It means that we can’t be sure whether the canon examples intentionally or accidentally suggest different meaning depending on whether it follows nouns or verbs.
SuStel appropriately assumes it was intentional, since there are apparently no contradictory examples in canon to suggest otherwise, leaving us with a little extra work to do if we want to convey the meaning we don’t have an example for in canon.
No... Okrand says so explicitly in TKD:
Unlike the other adverbials, [neH] follows the verb which it modifies. The semantic effect is one of trivializing the action.
[...]
Also unlike the other adverbials, neH can follow a noun. In such cases, it means only, alone.
-- 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
SuStel:
If neH is okay after an 'e', then this means You care that it is only the case that we capture the ancient cat. neH after a pronoun is the same as neH after a noun, and neH after a noun means only this, not that. Your English translation, on the other hand, invokes the after-a-verb sense of merely: You care that it is merely the case that we capture the ancient cat; You care about the triviality that is our capturing the ancient cat.
I'm afraid I can't understand this. The way I understand the sentence {vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' neH DaSaH}, is "there is an event (our capturing the ancient cat), and you care only about that event". How is this different from "You care that it is only the case that we capture the ancient cat" ? I'm not arguing that the way I understand this is correct; I genuinely can't "feel" any difference between the two. ~ qa'yIn
You might be less confused and communicate better if you choose to avoid the word “only”, which in English can either mean “exclusively” or “merely” and instead use the words “exclusively” and “merely” to make sure we know which meaning of “only” you intend to express. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 11, 2020, at 8:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
If neH is okay after an 'e', then this means You care that it is only the case that we capture the ancient cat. neH after a pronoun is the same as neH after a noun, and neH after a noun means only this, not that. Your English translation, on the other hand, invokes the after-a-verb sense of merely: You care that it is merely the case that we capture the ancient cat; You care about the triviality that is our capturing the ancient cat.
I'm afraid I can't understand this.
The way I understand the sentence {vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' neH DaSaH}, is "there is an event (our capturing the ancient cat), and you care only about that event". How is this different from "You care that it is only the case that we capture the ancient cat" ?
I'm not arguing that the way I understand this is correct; I genuinely can't "feel" any difference between the two.
~ qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
You might be less confused and communicate better if you choose to avoid the word “only”, which in English can either mean “exclusively” or “merely” and instead use the words “exclusively” and “merely” to make sure we know which meaning of “only” you intend to express.
With regards to the placement of {neH} after the {'e'} of a sao, or before the {neH} of a sao, I meant it in the context of "exclusively". ~ qa'yIn
From: mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
With regards to the placement of {neH} after the {'e'} of a sao, or before the {neH} of a sao, I meant it in the context of "exclusively".
There is no case where you would put the adverb {neH} in front of the {'e'}. {neH} is unusual as an adverb in that it does NOT go in the normal adverb slot (at the beginning of the OVS). {neH} always FOLLOWS what it is modifying. It can follow verbs, in which case it would mean "merely" and it can also follow nouns, in which case it would mean "exclusively".
The way I understand the sentence {vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' neH DaSaH}, is "there is an event (our capturing the ancient cat), and you care only about that event". How is this different from "You care that it is only the case that we capture the ancient cat" ?
I also see no difference between those two English sentences. In both cases you are saying that the person exclusively cares about "us capturing the ancient cat". Both of your English sentences are different ways of translating that one Klingon sentence. {vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' DaSaH neH} would mean, "You merely care that we capture the ancient cat (I expected you have to be more excited or have more involvement, but you're kind of blowing it off). If {neH} is before the {'e'} then it must be applying to something from the preceding clause. If it follows {'e'}, then it would mean "that exclusively". If it follows the verb after the {'e'} then it is saying that something more interesting might normally be expected, but not this time. {vIghro' tIQ wIjon neH 'e' DaSaH} would mean, "You care that we merely capture the ancient cat (we thought that you would have spectacular plans for the captured cat)". janSIy
On 6/10/2020 7:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If we can say:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' neH DaSaH you only care that we capture the ancient cat
If *neH* is okay after an *'e',* then this means /You care that it is only the case that we capture the ancient cat./ *neH* after a pronoun is the same as *neH* after a noun, and *neH* after a noun means /only this, not that./ Your English translation, on the other hand, invokes the after-a-verb sense of /merely: You care that it is merely the case that we capture the ancient cat; You care about the triviality that is our capturing the ancient cat. / So if it's a legal sentence, it doesn't mean what you think it means. If you want to express that I only care about capturing the ancient cat and not something else, you'd need to say something like *vIghro' tIQ wIjon 'e' DaSaH; latlh DaSaHbe'.*
Then why couldn't we say as well:
vIghro' tIQ wIjon neH DaneH you only want that we capture the ancient cat
Same problem as above. In addition, the *neH* here would almost certainly be interpreted as trivializing the *jon* instead of making exclusive the sentence *vIghro' tIQ wIjon.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
janSIy . -
jevreh＠qeylis.net -
kechpaja＠kechpaja.com -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin