{je} "too" with negative meanings on the second sentence
yaS luHoHpu', 'a be' luHoHpu'be' je they killed the officer, but they didn't kill the woman too Seemingly/apparently the English sentence sounds strange; but is there anything wrong with the Klingon one? Is there something wrong in using the {je} "too" this way? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 11/10/2021 7:50 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
yaS luHoHpu', 'a be' luHoHpu'be' je they killed the officer, but they didn't kill the woman too
Seemingly/apparently the English sentence sounds strange; but is there anything wrong with the Klingon one? Is there something wrong in using the {je} "too" this way?
Based on how *je* is presented in /The Klingon Dictionary,/ I don't think this is how it works. It appears to be used when you want to change one element of the OVS part of a sentence and compare it to the previous sentence. *SoHvaD 'uQ wej vIqem. Dargh vIqem je. */Conversational Klingon. /The changed element is the food brought. *jIghung. jIghung je.* *jI'oj. jI'oj je. */Power Klingon./ The changed element is the verb. *'ej ghIjpu' [tlhIngan may'Duj] nIteb ghIjpu' je [tlhIngan wo' Degh] */Skybox SP1./ The changed element is the thing doing the scaring. *ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je. */Skybox SP2./ The changed element is the verb. And so on. So I don't think you'd combine *yaS luHoHpu'* and* 'a be' luHoHpu'be' je* in this way. Here, you're changing both the object and the verb. Just say *yaS luHoHpu' 'a be' luHoHpu'be'*/They killed the officer but they didn't kill the woman./ The *'a*/but/ handles the unexpectedness of the woman not also being killed. If you wanted to emphasize the exception, you could say something like *yaS luHoHpu' 'a yIntaHbe' 'e' luchaw'*/They killed the man but they permitted the woman to live./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 11/10/2021 9:07 AM, SuStel wrote:
*jIghung. jIghung je.*
*jI'oj. jI'oj je. */Power Klingon./ The changed element is the verb.
Correction: the changed element is who is doing the speaking, the subject of the sentence. Even though it's *jIH* both times, the identity of *jIH* changes in the second sentence. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 at 15:07, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/10/2021 7:50 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
And so on. So I don't think you'd combine
*yaS luHoHpu'* and * 'a be' luHoHpu'be' je*
in this way. Here, you're changing both the object and the verb.
Just say *yaS luHoHpu' 'a be' luHoHpu'be'** They killed the officer but they didn't kill the woman.* The *'a** but* handles the unexpectedness of the woman not also being killed. If you wanted to emphasize the exception, you could say something like *yaS luHoHpu' 'a yIntaHbe' 'e' luchaw'** They killed the man but they permitted the woman to live.*
I can see how the example sentence might have come about, though. Suppose I were to say: {yaS luHoHpu'. be' luHoHpu' je.} "They killed the officer. They killed the woman also [i.e., they killed the woman, in addition to the officer]." Nothing controversial there. Now suppose that I'm reporting back to someone who is expecting me to say the above. Maybe I'm a hostage negotiator and things are going badly, and I leave the building where the terrorists have just killed at least one hostage to report to the police chief. I say: {yaS luHoHpu'. 'ach be' luHoHpu'be' je.} "They killed the officer. But they didn't kill the woman also [i.e., kill the woman, in addition to the officer]." I don't even think the English sentences sound strange here. If you think of it as applying {je} to the negated sentence, then it looks like too many things have changed at once for {je} to be applicable. But I think of the above example as applying the {-be'} to {be' luHoHpu' je}. And I don't think the meaning is quite exactly the same with {'a} but no {je}. There's a difference between "They didn't kill the woman" and "They didn't kill the woman also", namely, one of emphasis. "They killed the officer, but they didn't kill the woman" is a matter-of-fact statement. "They killed the officer, but they didn't kill the woman also" has the implication that "things could've been worse". I don't think there was anything wrong with the Klingon sentence and it could make sense in context. -- De'vID
Again, I think it comes down to that Klingon has a verb conjunction {‘ej} and an adverbial {je} that are closely related. There is no adverbial that is closely related to {‘ach}. X and Y, too. X and not Y, however. Klingon has the adverbial “too”, but not an adverbial “however”.
On Nov 10, 2021, at 1:49 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 at 15:07, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote: On 11/10/2021 7:50 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: And so on. So I don't think you'd combine
yaS luHoHpu' and 'a be' luHoHpu'be' je
in this way. Here, you're changing both the object and the verb.
Just say yaS luHoHpu' 'a be' luHoHpu'be' They killed the officer but they didn't kill the woman. The 'a but handles the unexpectedness of the woman not also being killed. If you wanted to emphasize the exception, you could say something like yaS luHoHpu' 'a yIntaHbe' 'e' luchaw' They killed the man but they permitted the woman to live.
I can see how the example sentence might have come about, though.
Suppose I were to say: {yaS luHoHpu'. be' luHoHpu' je.} "They killed the officer. They killed the woman also [i.e., they killed the woman, in addition to the officer]."
Nothing controversial there. Now suppose that I'm reporting back to someone who is expecting me to say the above. Maybe I'm a hostage negotiator and things are going badly, and I leave the building where the terrorists have just killed at least one hostage to report to the police chief. I say: {yaS luHoHpu'. 'ach be' luHoHpu'be' je.} "They killed the officer. But they didn't kill the woman also [i.e., kill the woman, in addition to the officer]."
I don't even think the English sentences sound strange here. If you think of it as applying {je} to the negated sentence, then it looks like too many things have changed at once for {je} to be applicable. But I think of the above example as applying the {-be'} to {be' luHoHpu' je}. And I don't think the meaning is quite exactly the same with {'a} but no {je}. There's a difference between "They didn't kill the woman" and "They didn't kill the woman also", namely, one of emphasis. "They killed the officer, but they didn't kill the woman" is a matter-of-fact statement. "They killed the officer, but they didn't kill the woman also" has the implication that "things could've been worse".
I don't think there was anything wrong with the Klingon sentence and it could make sense in context.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I found only one example of the pattern{[VERB]be’ je}: chalqachDaq bIQaDbe' je Even in a tower you are not safe. (PB p.158-59) I’m not sure what {je} adds to your sentence. Is this a pattern in Greek? I would just have said: yaS luHoHpu', 'a be' luHoHpu'be'. They killed the officer, but they didn’t kill the woman. yaS luHoHpu'; be' luHoHpu'be'. They killed the officer; they did not kill the woman. (BTW I do like the sound of the repeating syllable {be’} in both “woman” and “not”. To my ears it reinforces the message.) -- Voragh ______________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of mayqel qunen'oS yaS luHoHpu', 'a be' luHoHpu'be' je they killed the officer, but they didn't kill the woman too Seemingly/apparently the English sentence sounds strange; but is there anything wrong with the Klingon one? Is there something wrong in using the {je} "too" this way?
voragh:
I’m not sure what {je} adds to your sentence. Is this a pattern in Greek?
Yes, it's something which is usually done in Greek, in order to emphasize slightly the fact that "they didn't kill the woman". Obviously, it must have been the influence from Greek, which led me to wonder about this. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin