In translating Stairway to Heaven, I hit a snag on the line, “Don’t be alarmed, now.” If we had a verb for “be alarmed”, you could say, {yI-[be alarmed]Qo’}, but the verb is {ghum} — “alarm, sound an alarm”. In a Statement, we could build “be alarmed” out of {glumlu’}, but when you put the {yI-} on it, the subject is expected to be the First Person. Well, the statement “I am alarmed,” would be {vIghumlu’} or “-indefinite subject- alarms me." Does the imperative prefix do the same {-lu’} trick pointing to the object instead of the subject? Is {yIghumlu’} valid for “Be alarmed!”? If so, {yIghumlu’Qo’} is perfectly meaningful and grammatical. But Okrand doesn’t tell us about {-lu’} with the Imperative. So, in translation, I just took the leap of faith, figuring this must be the case, or else there can be no use of {-lu’} with the Imperative. But then, how would I say, “Don’t alarm the others!”? {latlhpu’vaD yIghumQo’!}? And “Don’t be alarmed, for the others,” as in, “For the sake of not alarming the others, show no fear.”… {latlhpu’vaD yIghumlu’Qo’}? Then again, did I derail myself from the very beginning assuming that {ghum} can take an object other than the alarm being sounded? vISIvmoHlu’bejtaH. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:12 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
If we had a verb for “be alarmed”, you could say, {yI-[be alarmed]Qo’}, but the verb is {ghum} — “alarm, sound an alarm”. In a Statement, we could build “be alarmed” out of {glumlu’}, but when you put the {yI-} on it, the subject is expected to be the First Person.
Or you could say {yay'} "be shocked, dumbfounded" or {bIt} "be nervous, uneasy". The English "be alarmed" doesn't really have anything to do with alarms. {yI-} is *not* a First Person prefix, but I will assume you know it's Second Person subject and just misspoke.
Well, the statement “I am alarmed,” would be {vIghumlu’} or “-indefinite subject- alarms me."
Does the imperative prefix do the same {-lu’} trick pointing to the object instead of the subject? Is {yIghumlu’} valid for “Be alarmed!”?
I'm going to have to go with an unequivocal "No". The indefinite subject suffix doesn't "point" the meaning of a word to anything that the word doesn't normally point to. It *always* means the subject is indefinite. That is completely incompatible with imperatives, which *always* have a second-person subject. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 10/31/2021 7:38 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:12 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
If we had a verb for “be alarmed”, you could say, {yI-[be alarmed]Qo’}, but the verb is {ghum} — “alarm, sound an alarm”. In a Statement, we could build “be alarmed” out of {glumlu’}, but when you put the {yI-} on it, the subject is expected to be the First Person.
Or you could say {yay'} "be shocked, dumbfounded" or {bIt} "be nervous, uneasy". The English "be alarmed" doesn't really have anything to do with alarms.
Agreed. *ghum* refers to becoming aware of something; /alarmed/ has to do with an emotional state. I would have no trouble reading *bItqu' *as /be alarmed./ Nervousness or uneasiness, taken to an extreme, could be a state of alarm.
{yI-} is *not* a First Person prefix, but I will assume you know it's Second Person subject and just misspoke.
Well, the statement “I am alarmed,” would be {vIghumlu’} or “-indefinite subject- alarms me."
Does the imperative prefix do the same {-lu’} trick pointing to the object instead of the subject? Is {yIghumlu’} valid for “Be alarmed!”?
I'm going to have to go with an unequivocal "No". The indefinite subject suffix doesn't "point" the meaning of a word to anything that the word doesn't normally point to. It *always* means the subject is indefinite. That is completely incompatible with imperatives, which *always* have a second-person subject.
Agreed. Imperative impersonal subject makes no semantic sense in Klingon. I might translate this as *yIbItqu'Qo'* or *yIbItHa'qu''eghmoH.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thanks to both SuStel and ghunchu’wI’. This was exactly what I was looking for. I was sure that my weak familiarity with this area of vocabulary was at the root of the problem, and yes, I meant 2nd person. [Kick self for lack of mindfulness.]
On Oct 31, 2021, at 7:50 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/31/2021 7:38 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:12 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
If we had a verb for “be alarmed”, you could say, {yI-[be alarmed]Qo’}, but the verb is {ghum} — “alarm, sound an alarm”. In a Statement, we could build “be alarmed” out of {glumlu’}, but when you put the {yI-} on it, the subject is expected to be the First Person.
Or you could say {yay'} "be shocked, dumbfounded" or {bIt} "be nervous, uneasy". The English "be alarmed" doesn't really have anything to do with alarms. Agreed. ghum refers to becoming aware of something; alarmed has to do with an emotional state.
I would have no trouble reading bItqu' as be alarmed. Nervousness or uneasiness, taken to an extreme, could be a state of alarm.
{yI-} is *not* a First Person prefix, but I will assume you know it's Second Person subject and just misspoke.
Well, the statement “I am alarmed,” would be {vIghumlu’} or “-indefinite subject- alarms me."
Does the imperative prefix do the same {-lu’} trick pointing to the object instead of the subject? Is {yIghumlu’} valid for “Be alarmed!”?
I'm going to have to go with an unequivocal "No". The indefinite subject suffix doesn't "point" the meaning of a word to anything that the word doesn't normally point to. It *always* means the subject is indefinite. That is completely incompatible with imperatives, which *always* have a second-person subject. Agreed. Imperative impersonal subject makes no semantic sense in Klingon.
I might translate this as yIbItqu'Qo' or yIbItHa'qu''eghmoH.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
SuStel:
I might translate this as yIbItqu'Qo' or yIbItHa'qu''eghmoH.
I know the *general* rule is to form the imperative of verbs of state or quality with the suffixes *-egh* and *-moH*. Doesn't it apply to the negative form? Or is there a difference between *yIbItqu'Qo'* and *yIbItqu'eghmoHQo'*?
On 11/1/2021 10:43 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
I might translate this as yIbItqu'Qo' or yIbItHa'qu''eghmoH. I know the*general* rule is to form the imperative of verbs of state or quality with the suffixes *-egh* and *-moH*. Doesn't it apply to the negative form? Or is there a difference between *yIbItqu'Qo'* and *yIbItqu'eghmoHQo'*?
I was wondering if someone would call me on that. The rule seems to be very limited if we look at the semantics of the sentence. I use *-'egh* and *-moH* on *yIbItHa'qu* because it's a command to /make yourself un-alarmed,/ something to actively do. The command with *yIbItqu'* is a command not to enter an alarmed state, something that one doesn't actively do to oneself. I'm not entirely sure that *-'eghmoH* is needed here. Maybe it would be better to say *yIbItqu'choHQo'*/Don't change state to being alarmed./ In general, I just don't know the answer to your question of whether the negative form requires *-'eghmoH.* If often feels wrong. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
The rule seems to be very limited if we look at the semantics of the sentence. I use -'egh and -moH on yIbItHa'qu because it's a command to make yourself un-alarmed, something to actively do. The command with yIbItqu' is a command not to enter an alarmed state, something that one doesn't actively do to oneself. I'm not entirely sure that -'eghmoH is needed here. Maybe it would be better to say yIbItqu'choHQo' Don't change state to being alarmed. In general, I just don't know the answer to your question of whether the negative form requires -'eghmoH. If often feels wrong.
Thank you for clarifying! I know there is no simple answer, I just want to be sure I've understood your explanation. You tend to use *-eghmoH* when the subject can control or influence the required change. *Cause yourself to be un-alarmed or relaxed* makes sense, because *becoming relaxed* is something one can actively do (with exercises, analysis etc.). *Don't cause yourself to be alarmed or nervous* makes no sense, because *becoming nervous* is something one cannot *cause*, something one doesn't control, it's a state one is brought to and therefore you cannot command someone not to cause a state she or he is not able to cause anyway. Or am I missing something here?
On 11/1/2021 6:05 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
The rule seems to be very limited if we look at the semantics of the sentence. I use -'egh and -moH on yIbItHa'qu because it's a command to make yourself un-alarmed, something to actively do. The command with yIbItqu' is a command not to enter an alarmed state, something that one doesn't actively do to oneself. I'm not entirely sure that -'eghmoH is needed here. Maybe it would be better to say yIbItqu'choHQo' Don't change state to being alarmed. In general, I just don't know the answer to your question of whether the negative form requires -'eghmoH. If often feels wrong. Thank you for clarifying!
I know there is no simple answer, I just want to be sure I've understood your explanation. You tend to use *-eghmoH* when the subject can control or influence the required change.*Cause yourself to be un-alarmed or relaxed* makes sense, because*becoming relaxed* is something one can actively do (with exercises, analysis etc.).*Don't cause yourself to be alarmed or nervous* makes no sense, because*becoming nervous* is something one cannot*cause*, something one doesn't control, it's a state one is brought to and therefore you cannot command someone not to cause a state she or he is not able to cause anyway. Or am I missing something here?
Yes, that's pretty much what I mean. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I've just realized I've been forgetting the *qaghwI'* of *-'egh* in my last posts, sorry!
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
SuStel -
Will Martin