Dochmey mI' yajHa' nuvpu' ; 'ej Dop Hurgh 'oH wa' Doch'e'.. mu'mey' {Dop Hurgh} DajatlhDI' 'ej luQoylu' ngugh SIbI' Qub ghaH: Dochmey mIgh bop mu'meyDaj.. 'ach DaH maghel'eghnIS: mIgh'a' Dop Hurgh ? 'ej mu'tlheghvam wIjangmeH latlh mu'tlhegh wIqelnIS: nuq 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e' ? Do'Ha', Dop Hurgh DellaHchu' pagh; lubop ghantoH neH wInoblaH. bImob; 'e' Dajal.. nIlonta' Hoch 'ej bIwunchoH. chaq bI'IQ, chaq bI''It, ej bItaHmeH boqwI' DaSuqnIS.. 'ach ngugh SoHvaD DubDu'chaj tlhe'ta' Hoch. toH, nIteb QIHna' Dabam. 'ej nImaghta'mo' Hoch, QIt bIQeHchoH.. meQchoH 'IwlIj, pubchoH 'IwlIj. SoHvaD bIjatlh: HeghwIj vIbam, muSuv Hoch. 'ach jIluj vIneHbe', jIHegh vIneHbe' ! jIHoSnISchoH ! 'ej ngugh, raSDaq pe'vIl ro'lIj DamupmoH ! tupvetlh lupvetlh je 'oH Dop Hurgh'e'.. tupvetlh lupvetlh je 'oH Hurghchu'ghach'e'. QeH'a' lupvetlh, 'ach tlhabna' lupvetlh. qaStaHvIS lupvetlh, QeH'a'lIjmo' bIHoSchoH 'ej bIHoSchoHmo' tagha' bItaHlaH. toH, tagha', Dop Hurgh lo'laHghach wIleghlaH. mIghbe' Dop Hurgh; chaq naHchoHlaH 'ach mataHmeH 'ut. mataHmeH wIghajnIS. nuvvaD, HoS'a' noblaH Dop Hurgh; HoS'a' tlhab'a' je. meqvammo' wIlajnIS 'ej wIquvnISmoH. SKI: no SKI. if you want to understand learn klingon. qunnoH jan puqloD
Dochmey mI' sounds like a direct translation of "number of things." Perhaps Klingons use such a phrase, perhaps not. {'op Dochmey} conveys this idea without inventing a phrase. mI' is presumably singular, in which case you'd use luyajHa' with the plural 3rd person subject, though this is apparently the grammatical rule most often violated by Klingons. You don't need to translate literally the words, "When you say the words 'Dark Side'." In Klingon, one of the worst crimes is to be verbose. Just say bIjatlhDI' Dop Hurgh (or put the "reported speech" first; it makes no difference. Also, even if the words have not been spoken, you can treat them as reported speech when using endings like -DI'). You also switch from using -lu' to definite 3rd person singular. If you're going to use -lu' because the subject is unimportant, then stick with it. Using -lu' eliminates the subject, although there is usually an agent, but the former is grammatical, while the latter is semantic. It's important to differentiate between grammar and semantics, because the latter is what you'd like to say (or understand) and the former is how you need to say it. I stopped reading because I don't take Star Wars seriously. It's fun when it's not awful, but talking about Star Wars in Klingon is kind of like bringing bacon bits to a bar mitzvah. ~mIp'av
mIp'av:
Dochmey mI' sounds like a direct translation of "number of things." Perhaps Klingons use such a phrase, perhaps not.
I used the {Dochmey mI'} in order to say "a number of things", because I read somewhere at the klingon wiki, that we can use the {mI'} this way. In fact here is the direct copy-paste from my notes: ----- quote start ----- mI' number (of), quantity tlhInganpu' Hem mI' nIb an equal number of proud Klingons. ----- quote end ----- Unfortunately I didn't specify in my notes the exact source of this example. mIp'av:
mI' is presumably singular, in which case you'd use luyajHa' with the plural 3rd person subject
You're right. I was mistaken. mIp'av:
{'op Dochmey} conveys this idea without inventing a phrase.
I like the {'op Dochmey}. I like it a lot ! and because of this reason I'll add it in my notes, as an alternate way to say "a number of things". mIp'av:
You don't need to translate literally the words
I'm having trouble freeing my mind from the greek/english "prototype" passage; unfortunately I have a long way ahead, before I manage to actually "think" in klingon. mIp'av:
You also switch from using -lu' to definite 3rd person singular.
You're right. In fact, I remember some time ago, Qov pointing this out too. It seems that -for whatever reason- I keep doing this unconsciously. I'll try to keep this in mind next time. Anyway, thank you very much for your suggestions mIp'av ! qunnoH jan puqloD On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
Dochmey mI' sounds like a direct translation of "number of things." Perhaps Klingons use such a phrase, perhaps not. {'op Dochmey} conveys this idea without inventing a phrase. mI' is presumably singular, in which case you'd use luyajHa' with the plural 3rd person subject, though this is apparently the grammatical rule most often violated by Klingons.
You don't need to translate literally the words, "When you say the words 'Dark Side'." In Klingon, one of the worst crimes is to be verbose. Just say bIjatlhDI' Dop Hurgh (or put the "reported speech" first; it makes no difference. Also, even if the words have not been spoken, you can treat them as reported speech when using endings like -DI'). You also switch from using -lu' to definite 3rd person singular. If you're going to use -lu' because the subject is unimportant, then stick with it. Using -lu' eliminates the subject, although there is usually an agent, but the former is grammatical, while the latter is semantic. It's important to differentiate between grammar and semantics, because the latter is what you'd like to say (or understand) and the former is how you need to say it.
I stopped reading because I don't take Star Wars seriously. It's fun when it's not awful, but talking about Star Wars in Klingon is kind of like bringing bacon bits to a bar mitzvah.
~mIp'av
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/8/2016 2:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
mIp'av:
Dochmey mI' sounds like a direct translation of "number of things." Perhaps Klingons use such a phrase, perhaps not. I used the {Dochmey mI'} in order to say "a number of things", because I read somewhere at the klingon wiki, that we can use the {mI'} this way. In fact here is the direct copy-paste from my notes:
----- quote start ----- mI' number (of), quantity tlhInganpu' Hem mI' nIb an equal number of proud Klingons. ----- quote end -----
I had to look this up. It's from the page "Revelations of new rules inside /paq'batlh./" <http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/PaqbatlhNewRules> The phrase *Dochmey mI'* is talking about numbers, not things; *mI'* is the head noun. The phrase /number of things/ is talking about things. In your text, you were interested in the things, of which there are a number, not in the things' numbers, how many things there are. *Dochmey mI'* is an overly literal attempt to translate an English colloquialism. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
The phrase *Dochmey mI'* is talking about numbers, not things;*mI'* is the head noun.
Impressive analysis. I could have never thought that something like this is happening. However I need to ask you: Does this mean that in any noun-noun construction, the head noun is the second one ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 8 Nov 2016 4:31 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/8/2016 2:47 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
mIp'av:
Dochmey mI' sounds like a direct translation of "number of things." Perhaps Klingons use such a phrase, perhaps not.
I used the {Dochmey mI'} in order to say "a number of things", because I read somewhere at the klingon wiki, that we can use the {mI'} this way. In fact here is the direct copy-paste from my notes:
----- quote start ----- mI' number (of), quantity tlhInganpu' Hem mI' nIb an equal number of proud Klingons. ----- quote end -----
I had to look this up. It's from the page "Revelations of new rules inside *paq'batlh.*" <http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/PaqbatlhNewRules>
The phrase *Dochmey mI'* is talking about numbers, not things; *mI'* is the head noun. The phrase *number of things* is talking about things. In your text, you were interested in the things, of which there are a number, not in the things' numbers, how many things there are. *Dochmey mI'* is an overly literal attempt to translate an English colloquialism.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/8/2016 9:39 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
The phrase *Dochmey mI'* is talking about numbers, not things;*mI'* is the head noun.
Impressive analysis. I could have never thought that something like this is happening.
However I need to ask you:
Does this mean that in any noun-noun construction, the head noun is the second one ?
It's always the last one. (Noun-noun constructions can be strung together; e.g. *tlhIngan Hol yejHaD***is a kind of *yejHaD;* not a kind of *tlhIngan* or a kind of *Hol.*) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, thanks; however another question came to mind: I understand why the {Dochmey mI'} is wrong/inappropriate for the intented meaning. But what if I wrote {Dochmey HochHom} for "almost all of the things" ? In this example, is the {HochHom} the head noun too ? On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:46 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/8/2016 9:39 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
The phrase Dochmey mI' is talking about numbers, not things;mI' is the head noun.
Impressive analysis. I could have never thought that something like this is happening.
However I need to ask you:
Does this mean that in any noun-noun construction, the head noun is the second one ?
It's always the last one. (Noun-noun constructions can be strung together; e.g. tlhIngan Hol yejHaD is a kind of yejHaD; not a kind of tlhIngan or a kind of Hol.)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/8/2016 11:06 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, thanks; however another question came to mind:
I understand why the {Dochmey mI'} is wrong/inappropriate for the intented meaning. But what if I wrote {Dochmey HochHom} for "almost all of the things" ? In this example, is the {HochHom} the head noun too ?
Yes. Technically, if I said *Dochmey HochHom vISay'moHta'*/I cleaned most of the things,/ I'm saying I cleaned "a majority." A majority of what? Things. It's a "thing-majority," which is a kind of majority, not a kind of thing. It gets confusing because in English we say "most of the things," wherein /most/ is not a noun. But Klingon expresses this in a noun-noun construction, so the grammar is different. The Klingon kind of looks like *HochHom* is acting like an adjectival verb, but it's not. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj. So, -and correct me if my understanding is wrong-, the {Dochmey HochHom} is grammaticaly identical to the {Dochmey mI'}. But we tend to accept the {Dochmey HochHom} as being correct -in order to convey our intented meaning-, because the {HochHom} is acting like an adjectival verb (although it is not). right ? qunnoH jan puqloD On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/8/2016 11:06 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, thanks; however another question came to mind:
I understand why the {Dochmey mI'} is wrong/inappropriate for the intented meaning. But what if I wrote {Dochmey HochHom} for "almost all of the things" ? In this example, is the {HochHom} the head noun too ?
Yes. Technically, if I said Dochmey HochHom vISay'moHta' I cleaned most of the things, I'm saying I cleaned "a majority." A majority of what? Things. It's a "thing-majority," which is a kind of majority, not a kind of thing.
It gets confusing because in English we say "most of the things," wherein most is not a noun. But Klingon expresses this in a noun-noun construction, so the grammar is different. The Klingon kind of looks like HochHom is acting like an adjectival verb, but it's not.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/8/2016 11:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So, -and correct me if my understanding is wrong-, the {Dochmey HochHom} is grammaticaly identical to the {Dochmey mI'}. But we tend to accept the {Dochmey HochHom} as being correct -in order to convey our intented meaning-, because the {HochHom} is acting like an adjectival verb (although it is not).
No. *Dochmey HochHom* and *Dochmey mI' *are indeed grammatically identical (except you've been using *mI'* as a plural, so it's an implicit *Dochmey mI'mey*). We are not making exceptions to accommodate the meaning we want. *Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu' */people misunderstand the things' majority / People misunderstand the majority. The majority of what? Things. There are things, and people misunderstand the majority. *Dochmey mI' yajHa' nuvpu' */people misunderstand the things' numbers/ People misunderstand the numbers, the quantity. The numbers of what? Things. There are things, and people misunderstand how many of them there are. This was Ed's original, correct objection. *Dochmey mI'* doesn't mean "a lot of things" or "several things." It means "the number of things," "the count of things," "how many things there are." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, thanks. finally I understand.. qunnoH jan puqloD On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:36 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/8/2016 11:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So, -and correct me if my understanding is wrong-, the {Dochmey HochHom} is grammaticaly identical to the {Dochmey mI'}. But we tend to accept the {Dochmey HochHom} as being correct -in order to convey our intented meaning-, because the {HochHom} is acting like an adjectival verb (although it is not).
No. Dochmey HochHom and Dochmey mI' are indeed grammatically identical (except you've been using mI' as a plural, so it's an implicit Dochmey mI'mey). We are not making exceptions to accommodate the meaning we want.
Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu' people misunderstand the things' majority
People misunderstand the majority. The majority of what? Things. There are things, and people misunderstand the majority.
Dochmey mI' yajHa' nuvpu' people misunderstand the things' numbers
People misunderstand the numbers, the quantity. The numbers of what? Things. There are things, and people misunderstand how many of them there are.
This was Ed's original, correct objection. Dochmey mI' doesn't mean "a lot of things" or "several things." It means "the number of things," "the count of things," "how many things there are."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ok, pause and rewind.. SuStel
Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu' people misunderstand the things' majority People misunderstand the majority. The majority of what? Things. There are things, and people misunderstand the majority.
I got lost again; lets approach this from another angle.. And lets take this step by step, in order to discover what it is I'm actually not understanding here. Let me ask you this: sentence A: people misunderstand the things' majority sentence B: people misunderstand a/the majority of things Forget klingon for a moment; In english, what is the difference between sentence A and sentence B ? Is there one to start with ? The only difference I'm able to see is that sentence A sounds somewhat awkward. That aside, I can't see any other difference. qunnoH On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, thanks. finally I understand..
qunnoH jan puqloD
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:36 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/8/2016 11:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So, -and correct me if my understanding is wrong-, the {Dochmey HochHom} is grammaticaly identical to the {Dochmey mI'}. But we tend to accept the {Dochmey HochHom} as being correct -in order to convey our intented meaning-, because the {HochHom} is acting like an adjectival verb (although it is not).
No. Dochmey HochHom and Dochmey mI' are indeed grammatically identical (except you've been using mI' as a plural, so it's an implicit Dochmey mI'mey). We are not making exceptions to accommodate the meaning we want.
Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu' people misunderstand the things' majority
People misunderstand the majority. The majority of what? Things. There are things, and people misunderstand the majority.
Dochmey mI' yajHa' nuvpu' people misunderstand the things' numbers
People misunderstand the numbers, the quantity. The numbers of what? Things. There are things, and people misunderstand how many of them there are.
This was Ed's original, correct objection. Dochmey mI' doesn't mean "a lot of things" or "several things." It means "the number of things," "the count of things," "how many things there are."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/8/2016 11:53 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, pause and rewind..
SuStel
Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu' people misunderstand the things' majority People misunderstand the majority. The majority of what? Things. There are things, and people misunderstand the majority. I got lost again; lets approach this from another angle.. And lets take this step by step, in order to discover what it is I'm actually not understanding here.
Let me ask you this:
sentence A: people misunderstand the things' majority sentence B: people misunderstand a/the majority of things
Forget klingon for a moment; In english, what is the difference between sentence A and sentence B ? Is there one to start with ?
The only difference I'm able to see is that sentence A sounds somewhat awkward. That aside, I can't see any other difference.
Correct. One wouldn't colloquially say A, but they're identical in meaning. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, so far so good. So, because both sentences (A&B) are essentially the same, one CAN say {Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu'}, with the only problem being, that perhaps this klingon sentence -for the same reason as its english counterpart- is awkward too. However one CANNOT say {Dochmey mI'} because the meaning of it, isn't "several things" but "THE NUMBER of things". Would you agree with these conclusions ? qunnoH On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:08 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/8/2016 11:53 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, pause and rewind..
SuStel
Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu' people misunderstand the things' majority People misunderstand the majority. The majority of what? Things. There are things, and people misunderstand the majority.
I got lost again; lets approach this from another angle.. And lets take this step by step, in order to discover what it is I'm actually not understanding here.
Let me ask you this:
sentence A: people misunderstand the things' majority sentence B: people misunderstand a/the majority of things
Forget klingon for a moment; In english, what is the difference between sentence A and sentence B ? Is there one to start with ?
The only difference I'm able to see is that sentence A sounds somewhat awkward. That aside, I can't see any other difference.
Correct. One wouldn't colloquially say A, but they're identical in meaning.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/8/2016 12:32 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, so far so good.
So, because both sentences (A&B) are essentially the same, one CAN say {Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu'}, with the only problem being, that perhaps this klingon sentence -for the same reason as its english counterpart- is awkward too.
However one CANNOT say {Dochmey mI'} because the meaning of it, isn't "several things" but "THE NUMBER of things".
Would you agree with these conclusions ?
*Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu'* is not awkward in Klingon, so far as we know. The English is awkward because one does not typically talk about "the things' majority" but rather of "most of the things." This is just the difference of expression from one language to another. An extremely common issue that students of Klingon grapple with is that "Y of the X" does not always translate into Klingon "X Y." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj. DaH jIyaj. jupwI' qatlho' ! On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 8:13 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/8/2016 12:32 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, so far so good.
So, because both sentences (A&B) are essentially the same, one CAN say {Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu'}, with the only problem being, that perhaps this klingon sentence -for the same reason as its english counterpart- is awkward too.
However one CANNOT say {Dochmey mI'} because the meaning of it, isn't "several things" but "THE NUMBER of things".
Would you agree with these conclusions ?
Dochmey HochHom luyajHa' nuvpu' is not awkward in Klingon, so far as we know. The English is awkward because one does not typically talk about "the things' majority" but rather of "most of the things." This is just the difference of expression from one language to another.
An extremely common issue that students of Klingon grapple with is that "Y of the X" does not always translate into Klingon "X Y."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:32 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
However one CANNOT say {Dochmey mI'} because the meaning of it, isn't "several things" but "THE NUMBER of things".
If you want to say "several things", you shouldn't say {Dochmey mI'}, because that's not what it means. On the other hand, if you want to say "the things' quantity", then you *should* say {Dochmey' mI'}, because that *is* what it means. -- ghunchu'wI'
ghunchu'wI'
the things' quantity
and by "the things quantity" you mean "how many these things are" right ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 8 Nov 2016 8:50 pm, "Alan Anderson" <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:32 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
However one CANNOT say {Dochmey mI'} because the meaning of it, isn't "several things" but "THE NUMBER of things".
If you want to say "several things", you shouldn't say {Dochmey mI'}, because that's not what it means. On the other hand, if you want to say "the things' quantity", then you *should* say {Dochmey' mI'}, because that *is* what it means.
-- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:28:07AM -0500, Ed Bailey wrote:
I stopped reading because I don't take Star Wars seriously. It's fun when it's not awful, but talking about Star Wars in Klingon is kind of like bringing bacon bits to a bar mitzvah.
tay'laHbe' Hov leng venwI' Hov veS venwI' je 'e' vIHarbe'. mujbe'. Hov leng vIparHa'. Hov veS vIparHa' je. Hov veS Daparchugh Hov veS 'oSbogh QInmeyvetlh'e' DaleghnISbe'. QIn yIQaw'. yIleghQo'. SKI: Please, let's try and leave behind the stereotype that Star Trek and Star Wars are incompatible fandoms.
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
Ed Bailey -
kechpaja -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel