expressing "they are there"
Something weird came to mind.. romuluSngan chaH they are romulans jagh chaH romuluSngan'e' the romulans are enemies pa' chaHtaH romuluSngan'e' the romulans are there Now forget the romulans, and assume we want to say "they are there", without specifying who these "they" actually are. Shouldn't we write the following? pa' chaHtaH chaH'e' they are there Wouldn't this be the correct way to say it? It seems weird, but I can't see anything wrong with it. The only alternative I could thing of is writing just {pa' chaHtaH}. But the only meanings I get from this are: 1. "they continuously are the there". 2. "they are there" but the the identity of these "they" isn't just something unspecified, but rather something missing from the sentence. In other words, this sentence feels like someone saying "there, are the.." and that's it. So, the only reasonable choice is saying {pa' chaHtaH chaH'e'}. But am I correct on this? ~ Dana'an o eH aH o e Ha HaH
Am 17.02.2021 um 14:12 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Now forget the romulans, and assume we want to say "they are there", without specifying who these "they" actually are. Shouldn't we write the following?
pa' chaHtaH chaH'e' they are there
Wouldn't this be the correct way to say it? It seems weird, but I can't see anything wrong with it.
We have the canon examples: - {naDev bIHtaH} "here they are." and - {pa'Daq jIHtaH} "I am in the room" Although not a written rule, it looks like the {-taH} is added to say "be at a location". The continuous meaning does make sense here: it is not said when it started, and not when it ends. The subject is "being" at the location.
So, the only reasonable choice is saying {pa' chaHtaH chaH'e'}. But am I correct on this?
That sounds weird. It sound like what you suggested "they are The There". -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/ToBe
Your question is well presented. Someone else may be able to answer it more directly. For me, it brings up the often neglected topic of context. You seek a context-free way of converting the English words, “They are there,” into the one well-formed Klingon equivalent without considering the reason you would be saying it. “They are there,” is strikingly vague without context, and the specifics of that context would heavily dictate the decisions leading to the translation. If you are answering an implied or expressed, {nuqDaq chaH?}, the best answer is probably, {pa’}. If the question were, {pa’ nuq Dalegh?} the answer could be {chaH}. I’m not trying to be sarcastic or frustrating here. We have pronouns in English primarily as placeholders for nouns that are identified by context. It’s a more efficient expression of something that would be tedious if we had to repeat the noun every time. Klingon is less redundant than English. “They are here,” is a very characteristic statement in English implying a lot of shared context already known by both the speaker and the listener. So, if two Klingons shared that same known context, what would the Klingon speaker say? I’m suggesting that an English speaker would say, “They are there,” to cover a wider range of shared context and intended message than a Klingon, who would tend to tailor an even shorter message to the important part of the intended purpose of the utterance. Most English utterances lack any purpose at all. We just like to talk. Eventually, we get around to saying something for a reason. Klingons tend to have little patience for this and get straight to the point. So, the more vague and less obviously purposeful the English translation, likely the less it will resemble a literal translation in Klingon. Forgive my wandering. This happens when I’m speaking English. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 17, 2021, at 8:13 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Something weird came to mind..
romuluSngan chaH they are romulans
jagh chaH romuluSngan'e' the romulans are enemies
pa' chaHtaH romuluSngan'e' the romulans are there
Now forget the romulans, and assume we want to say "they are there", without specifying who these "they" actually are. Shouldn't we write the following?
pa' chaHtaH chaH'e' they are there
Wouldn't this be the correct way to say it? It seems weird, but I can't see anything wrong with it.
The only alternative I could thing of is writing just {pa' chaHtaH}. But the only meanings I get from this are:
1. "they continuously are the there".
2. "they are there" but the the identity of these "they" isn't just something unspecified, but rather something missing from the sentence. In other words, this sentence feels like someone saying "there, are the.." and that's it.
So, the only reasonable choice is saying {pa' chaHtaH chaH'e'}. But am I correct on this?
~ Dana'an o eH aH o e Ha HaH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jIH:
So, the only reasonable choice is saying {pa' chaHtaH chaH'e'}. But am I correct on this? lieven: That sounds weird. It sound like what you suggested "they are The There".
I'm afraid I can't understand this. Suppose we write: pa', bIHtaH toQDuj'e' there, are (the) birds of prey If this is correct, then why would it be wrong to say {pa', chaHtaH chaH'e'} ? It's a simple substitution: "there, are they". ~ Dana'an e oH eH aH o eH a HaH
On 2/17/2021 9:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose we write:
pa', bIHtaH toQDuj'e' there, are (the) birds of prey
If this is correct, then why would it be wrong to say {pa', chaHtaH chaH'e'} ? It's a simple substitution: "there, are they".
Because the correct way to link a pronoun with a noun is with the form *noun pronoun,* not *noun pronoun noun'e'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 17.02.2021 um 15:00 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
If this is correct, then why would it be wrong to say {pa', chaHtaH chaH'e'} ? It's a simple substitution: "there, are they".
I'm not saying it's wrong, but I belive it's just redundant as the English "They, they are there." Basically, the form is {[location] [pronoun]+taH} Another example from ST5: {DujHomDaq ghaHtaH} "He is in the shuttle." The pronoun can do the job of the verb: {ghaH} means "s/he is" in this context. There is no need to state or repeat the subject. It's also included already. It's okay to add the subject as a pronoun for emphasis. From TKD: {jIlujpu' jIH'e'} "I was ME who failed" (not someone else) So you might say {pa'Daq ghaHtaH ghaH'e'} to say that "it's him who is in the room, (not they)". I hope you understand what I mean. (I'm sure somebody will jump in and corect my linguistically incorrect wording, but I think the basis of what I say should be understandable) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/ToBe
On 2/17/2021 9:14 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
It's okay to add the subject as a pronoun for emphasis. From TKD: {jIlujpu' jIH'e'} "I was ME who failed" (not someone else)
So you might say {pa'Daq ghaHtaH ghaH'e'} to say that "it's him who is in the room, (not they)".
No, this doesn't work. *jIlujpu' jIH'e'* is a basic sentence; *pa'Daq ghaHtaH* is a copula. The *ghaHtaH* in the copula is not a verb; it's the subject. And when you have a sentence like *pa'Daq ghaHtaH HoD'e'*/The captain is in the room,/ the *-'e'* there marks topic (what the sentence is about), not focus (making the word exclusive). That is to say, the *HoD'e'* in my sentence doesn't mean /the captain (not someone else);/ it means /as for the captain./ If any Klingons say things like *pa'Daq ghaHtaH ghaH'e',* it is completely unattested and does not follow any rules we have been given. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 15:01, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Suppose we write:
pa', bIHtaH toQDuj'e' there, are (the) birds of prey
If this is correct, then why would it be wrong to say {pa', chaHtaH chaH'e'} ? It's a simple substitution: "there, are they".
Read the part in TKD 6.3 where it says "In the above examples, the subjects are pronouns. If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun...". The fact that pronouns and nouns are treated differently here rules out your substitution. -- De'vID
Will Martin willmartin2@mac.com
On Feb 17, 2021, at 12:05 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 15:01, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Suppose we write:
pa', bIHtaH toQDuj'e' there, are (the) birds of prey
If this is correct, then why would it be wrong to say {pa', chaHtaH chaH'e'} ? It's a simple substitution: "there, are they".
Read the part in TKD 6.3 where it says "In the above examples, the subjects are pronouns. If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun...". The fact that pronouns and nouns are treated differently here rules out your substitution.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jIvanHa’pu’mo’ jIQIj. QIntlheghvam vIjang ‘e’ vIHech, ‘ach jIQubqa’ ‘ej jImev ‘e’ vIwuq. Qin vIghItlhchoHpu’bogh vIQaw’ ‘e’ vIHech, ‘ach bong vIlab. DaH yInmeyraj Dachegh. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 17, 2021, at 2:10 PM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Will Martin willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>
On Feb 17, 2021, at 12:05 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com <mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 15:01, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Suppose we write:
pa', bIHtaH toQDuj'e' there, are (the) birds of prey
If this is correct, then why would it be wrong to say {pa', chaHtaH chaH'e'} ? It's a simple substitution: "there, are they".
Read the part in TKD 6.3 where it says "In the above examples, the subjects are pronouns. If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun...". The fact that pronouns and nouns are treated differently here rules out your substitution.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I know I typed a “g” in {jIvangHa’}, but the magic of computers changed that to {jIvanHa’}. I definitely did not intend to un-salute anyone. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 17, 2021, at 2:26 PM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
jIvanHa’pu’mo’ jIQIj.
QIntlheghvam vIjang ‘e’ vIHech, ‘ach jIQubqa’ ‘ej jImev ‘e’ vIwuq. Qin vIghItlhchoHpu’bogh vIQaw’ ‘e’ vIHech, ‘ach bong vIlab.
DaH yInmeyraj Dachegh.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 17, 2021, at 2:10 PM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote:
Will Martin willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>
On Feb 17, 2021, at 12:05 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com <mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 15:01, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Suppose we write:
pa', bIHtaH toQDuj'e' there, are (the) birds of prey
If this is correct, then why would it be wrong to say {pa', chaHtaH chaH'e'} ? It's a simple substitution: "there, are they".
Read the part in TKD 6.3 where it says "In the above examples, the subjects are pronouns. If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun...". The fact that pronouns and nouns are treated differently here rules out your substitution.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
Am 17.02.2021 um 18:05 schrieb De'vID:
Read the part in TKD 6.3 where it says "In the above examples, the subjects are pronouns. If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun...". The fact that pronouns and nouns are treated differently here rules out your substitution.
That is all correct. But I do not see a strict rule saying that it is "not possible" to do what mayqel suggested. The rule only says what to do when the the subject is a noun. I still believe that when we apply the rule described in chapter 3.3.5 talking about emphasis, mayqel's suggestion might work. All just theoretically, but if you really take things exactly as written, that chapter also says. (upper case added for emphasis) "This suffix emphasizes that the NOUN to which it is attached is the topic of the sentence. In English, this is frequently accomplished by stressing the NOUN [...] And then, the first given example uses a PRONOUN. {jIlujpu' jIH'e'} "I, and only I, have failed." "It is I who has failed." So, in this case, pronouns and nouns are NOT treated differently. o_O - - - - - I read {DujDaq maHtaH maH'e'} as an emphasis as the English "WE are in the shuttle." And I do not see where it breaks a rule. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/ToBe
I couldn't find any examples of a pronoun-as-verb followed by a pronoun, only nouns - as SuStel I believe pointed out - but I did find two comments in my notes which support Lieven's point: Okrand communicated privately with members of the KSRP that pronouns (being a subset of nouns) could indeed be used with stative verbs. Thus, {SoH po' law' jIH po' puS} is correct. (HQ 4.2:3) "Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added clarity." (TKD 52) I agree with him that {DujDaq maHtaH maH'e'} is legal, especially in a pointed contrast. E.g. may'DujDaq maHtaH maH'e' 'ach tengchaHDaq tlhIHtaH tlhIH'e'. It is WE who are in on the battlecruiser; YOU on the other hand are on the space station. While strictly speaking legal, it may well be extremely rare. In fact, other than {lujpu' jIH'e'} I found only one other example of {-'e} attached to a pronoun (albeit without a pronoun-as-verb) in Vixis's rather panicky warning to Klaa in ST5: 'ach HoD, Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e' ! But Captain, that course will take *US* into the [Great] Barrier as well! But rather than argue as to whether it's grammatical, we should ask whether it's acceptable. This could well be considered a case of {pabHa'} to "misfollow the rules" (discussed in KGT pp. 176-189 passim). (TKD, introduction): It should be remembered that even though the rules say "always" and "never," when Klingon is actually spoken these rules are sometimes broken. What the rules represent, in other words, is what Klingon grammarians agree on as the "best" Klingon. (Okrand, st.k 11/1997): Speakers who do this seem to be aware that they are breaking the rules, so they are doing it for rhetorical effect. -- Voragh ----------------------------------------Original Message---------------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer Am 17.02.2021 um 18:05 schrieb De'vID:
Read the part in TKD 6.3 where it says "In the above examples, the subjects are pronouns. If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun...". The fact that pronouns and nouns are treated differently here rules out your substitution.
That is all correct. But I do not see a strict rule saying that it is "not possible" to do what mayqel suggested. The rule only says what to do when the the subject is a noun. I still believe that when we apply the rule described in chapter 3.3.5 talking about emphasis, mayqel's suggestion might work. All just theoretically, but if you really take things exactly as written, that chapter also says. (upper case added for emphasis) "This suffix emphasizes that the NOUN to which it is attached is the topic of the sentence. In English, this is frequently accomplished by stressing the NOUN [...] And then, the first given example uses a PRONOUN. {jIlujpu' jIH'e'} "I, and only I, have failed." "It is I who has failed." So, in this case, pronouns and nouns are NOT treated differently. o_O - - - - - I read {DujDaq maHtaH maH'e'} as an emphasis as the English "WE are in the shuttle." And I do not see where it breaks a rule.
On 2/17/2021 3:40 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
I couldn't find any examples of a pronoun-as-verb followed by a pronoun, only nouns - as SuStel I believe pointed out - but I did find two comments in my notes which support Lieven's point:
Okrand communicated privately with members of the KSRP that pronouns (being a subset of nouns) could indeed be used with stative verbs. Thus, {SoH po' law' jIH po' puS} is correct. (HQ 4.2:3)
"Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added clarity." (TKD 52)
I agree with him that {DujDaq maHtaH maH'e'} is legal, especially in a pointed contrast. E.g.
may'DujDaq maHtaH maH'e' 'ach tengchaHDaq tlhIHtaH tlhIH'e'. It is WE who are in on the battlecruiser; YOU on the other hand are on the space station.
It does not mean this. If it's allowed, it means /As for us, we are on the battle-cruiser, but as for you, you are on the space station./ The *-'e'* on the subject of a copula marks it as the topic, not as the focus. In your translation, you've used focus instead of topic. I agree that doing this does not break any written rules. Pronouns can substitute for nouns. But the resulting sentences don't mean what everyone is claiming they mean. To get the meaning you're claiming would require a pronouncement from Okrand.
While strictly speaking legal, it may well be extremely rare. In fact, other than {lujpu' jIH'e'} I found only one other example of {-'e} attached to a pronoun (albeit without a pronoun-as-verb) in Vixis's rather panicky warning to Klaa in ST5:
'ach HoD, Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e' ! But Captain, that course will take*US* into the [Great] Barrier as well!
This is perfectly legal and is correctly translated. In basic sentences (not copulas or relative clauses), using *-'e'* marks the noun or pronoun for focus. /But captain, that course will take US (forget that other ship; I'm focusing on US) into the Great Barrier as well!/ We know that nouns and pronouns are treated equally in this case, because the very concept is demonstrated for us with a pronoun: *jIlujpu' jIH'e'* (corrected). / /
But rather than argue as to whether it's grammatical, we should ask whether it's acceptable. This could well be considered a case of {pabHa'} to "misfollow the rules" (discussed in KGT pp. 176-189 passim).
(TKD, introduction): It should be remembered that even though the rules say "always" and "never," when Klingon is actually spoken these rules are sometimes broken. What the rules represent, in other words, is what Klingon grammarians agree on as the "best" Klingon.
(Okrand, st.k 11/1997): Speakers who do this seem to be aware that they are breaking the rules, so they are doing it for rhetorical effect.
I agree that the important question is whether it's acceptable, not grammatical. Since we have no evidence that any Klingon says things like this, we can't use the *pabHa'* argument to justify it. That discussion is about how Klingons break the rules, not how to justify our own use of dodgy acceptability. Let's ask a more general question. Instead of /they are there,/ how would you say /He is the captain?/ Naturally, the answer is *HoD ghaH.* But what's to stop someone from taking this new argument and insisting that you can say *HoD ghaH ghaH'e'?* Is that really the right way to translate /He is the captain?/ I don't think so. *tlhIngan maH maH'e'? 'Iv SoH SoH'e'?* What about *meHDaq meHDaq HoD ghaHbogh ghaH meHDaq HoD ghaHbogh ghaH'e'?* This means /He who is the captain on the bridge is he who is the captain on the bridge on the bridge./ Right? It follows all the rules. *meHDaq HoD ghaHbogh ghaH* /he who is the captain on the bridge/ is a relative clause, which acts as a noun X and can be substituted into the sentence wherever a noun might go, and the head noun is a pronoun so it acts as the pronoun-as-to-be. There's no rule that says this is wrong... -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I like this analysis. It’s well presented to explain that it is insufficient to prove that something doesn’t break rules and additionally imply that failing to prove that it breaks rules implies that it provides meaningful expression. Also, I appreciate the insight into the use of {-‘e’} on the last noun in {X ‘oH Y’e’} sentences. {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’} does get it’s “Krankor is a Klingon” translation through the mechanism of “Krankor is the topic of the sentence, 'He is a Klingon.’” Translation compresses the latter into the former. We are talking about Krankor when we say, “He is a Klingon." Okrand was trying to work out the mechanics of a language with no verb for “to be”, and came up with two mechanics. One is to imply “to be” in all the adjectival or stative verbs. The other is to use pronouns as both subject and verb, like {tlhIngan ghaH.} Meanwhile, in “Krankor is a Klingon,” you have this additional noun. What do you do with THAT? So, he made the subject noun the Topic of the sentence, and instead of placing this extra noun more like other {-‘e’} marked topics at the beginning of the sentence, which would have made it {Qanqor’e’ tlhIngan ghaH}, he leaned back toward placing it where the subject would normally go, in {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’.} This doesn’t mean that {ghaH} is now functioning as a verb and not as it normally does as the subject-verb combination. It’s still the subject and the verb. What we think of as the subject in English is this other noun, marked as topic and arbitrarily placed after the pronoun in this kind of sentence. Note that {Qanqor’e’ tlhIngan ghaH,} doesn’t break any rules and would effectively have the same meaning as {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’.} Likely, it’s a valid expression, though through habit and convention, Klingons always order the words {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’.} Using the unconventional word order wouldn’t be technically wrong, but at the least it would be “highly marked” suggesting that you don’t speak the language very well. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 17, 2021, at 4:18 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/17/2021 3:40 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
I couldn't find any examples of a pronoun-as-verb followed by a pronoun, only nouns - as SuStel I believe pointed out - but I did find two comments in my notes which support Lieven's point:
Okrand communicated privately with members of the KSRP that pronouns (being a subset of nouns) could indeed be used with stative verbs. Thus, {SoH po' law' jIH po' puS} is correct. (HQ 4.2:3)
"Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added clarity." (TKD 52)
I agree with him that {DujDaq maHtaH maH'e'} is legal, especially in a pointed contrast. E.g.
may'DujDaq maHtaH maH'e' 'ach tengchaHDaq tlhIHtaH tlhIH'e'. It is WE who are in on the battlecruiser; YOU on the other hand are on the space station. It does not mean this. If it's allowed, it means As for us, we are on the battle-cruiser, but as for you, you are on the space station.
The -'e' on the subject of a copula marks it as the topic, not as the focus. In your translation, you've used focus instead of topic.
I agree that doing this does not break any written rules. Pronouns can substitute for nouns. But the resulting sentences don't mean what everyone is claiming they mean. To get the meaning you're claiming would require a pronouncement from Okrand.
While strictly speaking legal, it may well be extremely rare. In fact, other than {lujpu' jIH'e'} I found only one other example of {-'e} attached to a pronoun (albeit without a pronoun-as-verb) in Vixis's rather panicky warning to Klaa in ST5:
'ach HoD, Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e' ! But Captain, that course will take *US* into the [Great] Barrier as well!
This is perfectly legal and is correctly translated. In basic sentences (not copulas or relative clauses), using -'e' marks the noun or pronoun for focus. But captain, that course will take US (forget that other ship; I'm focusing on US) into the Great Barrier as well! We know that nouns and pronouns are treated equally in this case, because the very concept is demonstrated for us with a pronoun: jIlujpu' jIH'e' (corrected).
But rather than argue as to whether it's grammatical, we should ask whether it's acceptable. This could well be considered a case of {pabHa'} to "misfollow the rules" (discussed in KGT pp. 176-189 passim).
(TKD, introduction): It should be remembered that even though the rules say "always" and "never," when Klingon is actually spoken these rules are sometimes broken. What the rules represent, in other words, is what Klingon grammarians agree on as the "best" Klingon.
(Okrand, st.k 11/1997): Speakers who do this seem to be aware that they are breaking the rules, so they are doing it for rhetorical effect. I agree that the important question is whether it's acceptable, not grammatical. Since we have no evidence that any Klingon says things like this, we can't use the pabHa' argument to justify it. That discussion is about how Klingons break the rules, not how to justify our own use of dodgy acceptability.
Let's ask a more general question. Instead of they are there, how would you say He is the captain?
Naturally, the answer is HoD ghaH. But what's to stop someone from taking this new argument and insisting that you can say HoD ghaH ghaH'e'? Is that really the right way to translate He is the captain? I don't think so. tlhIngan maH maH'e'? 'Iv SoH SoH'e'?
What about meHDaq meHDaq HoD ghaHbogh ghaH meHDaq HoD ghaHbogh ghaH'e'? This means He who is the captain on the bridge is he who is the captain on the bridge on the bridge. Right? It follows all the rules. meHDaq HoD ghaHbogh ghaH he who is the captain on the bridge is a relative clause, which acts as a noun X and can be substituted into the sentence wherever a noun might go, and the head noun is a pronoun so it acts as the pronoun-as-to-be. There's no rule that says this is wrong...
-- 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
On 2/18/2021 10:18 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Also, I appreciate the insight into the use of {-‘e’} on the last noun in {X ‘oH Y’e’} sentences. {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’} does get it’s “Krankor is a Klingon” translation through the mechanism of “Krankor is the topic of the sentence, 'He is a Klingon.’” Translation compresses the latter into the former. We are talking about Krankor when we say, “He is a Klingon."
Well, yes, but I wouldn't call this insight on my part: it's explained fairly explicitly in TKD when the topic (ahem) is introduced. *puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e'*/The prisoners are children./ *pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'*/The commander is in his quarters./ These sentences might also be translated /As for the prisoners, they are children; As for the commander, he is in his quarters./ / /
Okrand was trying to work out the mechanics of a language with no verb for “to be”, and came up with two mechanics. One is to imply “to be” in all the adjectival or stative verbs.
I wouldn't look at it this way. In English it is required to use /be/ to assign an adjective to a subject as the main thrust of a sentence; Klingon does away with this middleman and just makes all qualities equal to other verbs. You "do" *Quch* just as much as you "do" *qet.* To mentally insert a /be/ every time you see a verb of quality is to think in English or some similar language. When I see *Quch tlhIngan,* I think /A Klingon *Quch*es./
The other is to use pronouns as both subject and verb, like {tlhIngan ghaH.} Meanwhile, in “Krankor is a Klingon,” you have this additional noun. What do you do with THAT?
I consider the idea that the pronoun "acts" as the verb to be a simplification of what's really going on, to explain the grammar to an English speaker who can't conceive of a complete sentence without a verb (i.e., the intended audience of the book). In Klingon, a copula links either a noun with a pronoun or two nouns. Saying *tlhIngan ghaH* is to say *tlhIngan = ghaH:* you're explicitly setting the antecedent for your pronoun. You can use verb suffixes on the pronoun because you're allowed to modify that equals sign to better reflect the identity: is the identity continuous? negative? relative? interrogative?
So, he made the subject noun the Topic of the sentence, and instead of placing this extra noun more like other {-‘e’} marked topics at the beginning of the sentence, which would have made it {Qanqor’e’ tlhIngan ghaH},
Except for *qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS *and "fronted" sentences like *HaqwI''e' DaH yISam,* he has never done this. The former is a comparative or superlative and may not operate on the rules of basic sentences. The latter specifically explains that the marked noun is the object, so it's not a case of a free-floating topic noun (and Okrand has said fronting this way is marked and wouldn't be done regularly). So except for special cases, he has never used a free-floating topic noun. I have serious doubts whether they're used by Klingons.
Note that {Qanqor’e’ tlhIngan ghaH,} doesn’t break any rules and would effectively have the same meaning as {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’.} Likely, it’s a valid expression, though through habit and convention, Klingons always order the words {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’.} Using the unconventional word order wouldn’t be technically wrong, but at the least it would be “highly marked” suggesting that you don’t speak the language very well.
Correct. *Qanqor'e' tlhIngan ghaH* may not break any rules, but it's obviously not the right way to say this. I could imagine this to be another case of fronting. A bit of punctuation would make the use-case clearer:**Imagine a scene where Rich pulls off his rubber forehead and reveals that he's got a real Klingon forehead underneath. Everyone is stunned, and someone says *Qanqor'e'! tlhIngan ghaH!* /Krankor! He's a Klingon! /In any case, just because you can imagine a way it might be said doesn't mean it's now open season on the grammar. I mean, there's nothing actually /wrong/ with speaking like Yoda, and everyone will understand you, but that doesn't mean you want to emulate it for anything other than speaking like Yoda. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed., Feb. 17, 2021, 20:38 Lieven L. Litaer, <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 17.02.2021 um 18:05 schrieb De'vID:
Read the part in TKD 6.3 where it says "In the above examples, the subjects are pronouns. If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun...". The fact that pronouns and nouns are treated differently here rules out your substitution.
That is all correct. But I do not see a strict rule saying that it is "not possible" to do what mayqel suggested. The rule only says what to do when the the subject is a noun.
The exclusion is implicit in the context, because pronouns are a subclass of nouns. Consider that the subject is *always* a noun. (What else could it be? A verb? An adverbial?) So wouldn't "If the subject is a noun" always be true? Right after dealing with pronouns, it obviously means "If the subject is a noun [which is not a pronoun]", in context. I still believe that when we apply
the rule described in chapter 3.3.5 talking about emphasis, mayqel's suggestion might work.
But only in Morskan. ;-) (In standard Klingon, the {-'e'} already marks the subject in the copula, so it can't do double duty as an emphasis marker. See KGT p.23.) All just theoretically, but if you really take things exactly as
written, that chapter also says. (upper case added for emphasis)
"This suffix emphasizes that the NOUN to which it is attached is the topic of the sentence. In English, this is frequently accomplished by stressing the NOUN [...]
And then, the first given example uses a PRONOUN.
Not a contradiction, because pronouns are a subclass of nouns, and in this *other* context, they haven't been excluded. I read {DujDaq maHtaH maH'e'} as an emphasis as the English "WE are in
the shuttle." And I do not see where it breaks a rule.
In TKD section 6.3, which deals with "to be", it says "The pronoun always follows the noun." The entire section assumes that there's only one pronoun ("the pronoun"), and it follows the noun object. After explaining the simple case where there is only a pronoun (and no explicit noun subject), it says "If the subject is a noun, it follows the third-person pronoun... and takes the {-'e'} 'topic' suffix". (Note: "the third-person" pronoun, not "a third-person pronoun".) The rule that sentence is breaking is that there is more than one pronoun in a sentence where it has the sense of "to be". (The rule is implicit, and maybe someone could say there isn't such a rule, but doing so would require an explanation of why the phrase "If the subject is a noun" is necessary if its purpose isn't to rule out a pronoun in the subject slot.) Aside: It also says "third-person pronoun", so that rules out things like {HoD jIH wo'rIv'e'} "I, Worf, am the captain." (That might be a sentence which is accepted but not grammatical.) -- De'vID
On 2/17/2021 8:12 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Now forget the romulans, and assume we want to say "they are there", without specifying who these "they" actually are. Shouldn't we write the following?
pa' chaHtaH chaH'e' they are there
Wouldn't this be the correct way to say it? It seems weird, but I can't see anything wrong with it.
The only alternative I could thing of is writing just {pa' chaHtaH}. But the only meanings I get from this are:
1. "they continuously are the there".
2. "they are there" but the the identity of these "they" isn't just something unspecified, but rather something missing from the sentence. In other words, this sentence feels like someone saying "there, are the.." and that's it.
So, the only reasonable choice is saying {pa' chaHtaH chaH'e'}. But am I correct on this?
No, just say *pa' chaHtaH.* Or just *pa' chaH* if the continuousness of it is throwing you. When you're linking a pronoun with another noun, the pronoun is the subject of the sentence. TKD tells us this. Remember, in copula sentences, THERE IS NO VERB. The pronoun is not a verb which some subject is performing. It's still a pronoun. The only time you have *X pronoun Y'e'* is when X and Y are nouns (or noun phrases), not pronouns. *chaH* is not a noun; it is a pronoun. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin