peqIm, in preparation of his trip to the qepHom, Maltz has slipped some interesting details about the use of the verb {jeS}: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The verb {jeS} ("participate") does not take an object. It generally is in a phrase following a phrase saying what the subject of {jeS} is participating in. All of the following can be translated as "I participate in the qepHom," though the literal meaning of each is distinct: qaStaHvIS qepHom jIjeS ["While the qepHom is happening, I participate"] qaS qepHom ’ej jIjeS ["The qepHom is happening, and I participate"] qaS qepHom vaj jIjeS ["The qepHom is happening, so I participate"] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
Lieven wrote:
in preparation of his trip to the qepHom, Maltz has slipped some interesting details about the use of the verb {jeS}:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The verb {jeS} ("participate") does not take an object. It generally is in a phrase following a phrase saying what the subject of {jeS} is participating in. All of the following can be translated as "I participate in the qepHom," though the literal meaning of each is distinct:
qaStaHvIS qepHom jIjeS ["While the qepHom is happening, I participate"] qaS qepHom ’ej jIjeS ["The qepHom is happening, and I participate"] qaS qepHom vaj jIjeS ["The qepHom is happening, so I participate"] ----------------------------------------------------------------------[]
We can add these to the two previous examples, both from the "Star Trek: The Experience" (STX) communique: laS veghaS HIltonDaq «Hov leng: yIjeSchu'» qaSchoHmo', bIlopqu'meH HIlton yIghoS Come celebrate the grand opening of "Star Trek: The Experience" at the Las Vegas Hilton. STX tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH loS bIyIn jeSlaHpa' Hoch Be the first to journey to the 24th century. STX BTW, nice examples of the difference between {qaS X} and {qaStaHvIS X}. -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
to lieven: The part of your original message which is between the lines, is a direct copy-paste from maltz ? I'm asking in order to write to my notes who's the source. qunnoH On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Lieven wrote:
in preparation of his trip to the qepHom, Maltz has slipped some interesting details about the use of the verb {jeS}:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The verb {jeS} ("participate") does not take an object. It generally is in a phrase following a phrase saying what the subject of {jeS} is participating in. All of the following can be translated as "I participate in the qepHom," though the literal meaning of each is distinct:
qaStaHvIS qepHom jIjeS ["While the qepHom is happening, I participate"] qaS qepHom ’ej jIjeS ["The qepHom is happening, and I participate"] qaS qepHom vaj jIjeS ["The qepHom is happening, so I participate"] ----------------------------------------------------------------------[]
We can add these to the two previous examples, both from the "Star Trek: The Experience" (STX) communique:
laS veghaS HIltonDaq «Hov leng: yIjeSchu'» qaSchoHmo', bIlopqu'meH HIlton yIghoS Come celebrate the grand opening of "Star Trek: The Experience" at the Las Vegas Hilton. STX
tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH loS bIyIn jeSlaHpa' Hoch Be the first to journey to the 24th century. STX
BTW, nice examples of the difference between {qaS X} and {qaStaHvIS X}.
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 20.10.2016 um 07:56 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
to lieven:
The part of your original message which is between the lines, is a direct copy-paste from maltz ? I'm asking in order to write to my notes who's the source.
Ye, exactly. The only thing I changed was adding {these} for better readability because the original message had formatted Klingon words in bold face. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
because I have nothing better to do at the moment, 'ej qa'vInwIjvaD pubchoHmeH bIQ, jIloS.. I need to comment that in the aforementioned examples, there is an ambiguity. Someone says something along the lines of "while this happens" and continues by "I will participate". It does not specify that "he will participate to THAT event". 'ach DaH buptaHmo' bIQwIj, qa'vIn vIchenmoHmeH jImev ! qay'wI'vam jISaHbe' ! qa'vInwIj neH jISaH ! qunnoH ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 20 Oct 2016 9:10 am, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 20.10.2016 um 07:56 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
to lieven:
The part of your original message which is between the lines, is a direct copy-paste from maltz ? I'm asking in order to write to my notes who's the source.
Ye, exactly. The only thing I changed was adding {these} for better readability because the original message had formatted Klingon words in bold face.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 20.10.2016 um 14:54 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I need to comment that in the aforementioned examples, there is an ambiguity. Someone says something along the lines of "while this happens" and continues by "I will participate". It does not specify that "he will participate to THAT event".
I'm not so sure about that. Okrand said "It generally is in a phrase following a phrase saying what the subject of jeS is participating in." So when a person says "I participate" after mentioning an event, at least in Klingon it's quite clear. Also in english, when a person says "There's a comic con tonight. I am going." Nobody would wonder where he is going to (unless he want to behave as a smartass). tugh qaS qepHom'a'. bIjeS'a'? "Are you attending the qepHom'a' next month?" wa'Hu' bom moqwI'pu'. jeS vaghSaD nuvpu'. "The beatles had a concert yesterday with 5,000 visitors." tachDaq Suv tlhInganpu'. jeS jav. "six Klingons participate in a bar fight" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The verb {jeS} ("participate") does not take an object. It generally is in a phrase following a phrase saying what the subject of {jeS} is participating in. All of the following can be translated as "I participate in the qepHom," though the literal meaning of each is distinct:
qaStaHvIS qepHom jIjeS "While the qepHom is happening, I participate" qaS qepHom 'ej jIjeS "The qepHom is happening, and I participate" qaS qepHom vaj jIjeS "The qepHom is happening, so I participate" ---------------------------------------------------------------------
mayqel qunenoS:
I need to comment that in the aforementioned examples, there is an ambiguity. Someone says something along the lines of "while this happens" and continues by "I will participate". It does not specify that "he will participate to THAT event".
Lieven:
I'm not so sure about that. Okrand said "It generally is in a phrase following a phrase saying what the subject of jeS is participating in."
So when a person says "I participate" after mentioning an event, at least in Klingon it's quite clear.
Also in english, when a person says "There's a comic con tonight. I am going." Nobody would wonder where he is going to (unless he want to behave as a smartass).
tugh qaS qepHom'a'. bIjeS'a'? "Are you attending the qepHom'a' next month?"
wa'Hu' bom moqwI'pu'. jeS vaghSaD nuvpu'. "The beatles had a concert yesterday with 5,000 visitors."
tachDaq Suv tlhInganpu'. jeS jav. "six Klingons participate in a bar fight"
I have a feeling that {SaH} "be present (not absent)" and {Dach} "be absent" also work like {jeS}. There are no examples of {SaH} AFAIK, but there are two for {Dach}: qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDachQo' Don't miss this event! (WSC) Dach Hoch SuvwI'pu' Hem All proud warriors were gone (PB) Note the WSC example: "While this event is happening, don't be absent!" -- Voragh P.S. WSC = Washington Shakespeare Company's "By Any Other Name: An Evening of Shakespeare in Klingon" (2010)
On 20 October 2016 at 16:25, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
I have a feeling that {SaH} "be present (not absent)" and {Dach} "be absent" also work like {jeS}.
{SaH} "be present (not absent" would pretty much have to work this way, given that {SaH} with an explicit object means "care (about), be concerned (about)". Compare: {qaStaHvIS qepHom, jISaH} "I'm at the qepHom" {qaStaHvIS qepHom, vISaH} "I care about the qepHom while it's happening" {qepHom vISaH} "I care about the qepHom" -- De'vID
On 10/20/2016 10:25 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDachQo' Don't miss this event! (WSC)
What is WSC? This appears to be another exception to the general rule: "Generally, when a verb describing a state of being... is used in the imperative form, the suffixes *-’egh* (reflexive suffix) and *-moH* (“cause”) are used as well..." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 20 October 2016 at 17:12, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/20/2016 10:25 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDachQo' Don't miss this event! (WSC)
What is WSC?
It said right there in Voragh's mail!
P.S. WSC = Washington Shakespeare Company's "By Any Other Name: An Evening of Shakespeare in Klingon" (2010)
(Probably your mail software elided it, because it was under his signature.)
This appears to be another exception to the general rule: "Generally, when a verb describing a state of being... is used in the imperative form, the suffixes -’egh (reflexive suffix) and -moH (“cause”) are used as well..."
While {Dach} is a "be something" verb, is it a "state of being"? It seems somehow different than verbs like {tuj} or {taD}. -- De'vID
On 10/20/2016 11:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
On 20 October 2016 at 17:12, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/20/2016 10:25 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDachQo' Don't miss this event! (WSC)
What is WSC? It said right there in Voragh's mail!
P.S. WSC = Washington Shakespeare Company's "By Any Other Name: An Evening of Shakespeare in Klingon" (2010) (Probably your mail software elided it, because it was under his signature.)
No, I just missed it.
This appears to be another exception to the general rule: "Generally, when a verb describing a state of being... is used in the imperative form, the suffixes -’egh (reflexive suffix) and -moH (“cause”) are used as well..." While {Dach} is a "be something" verb, is it a "state of being"? It seems somehow different than verbs like {tuj} or {taD}.
Is "being absent" a state of being? Seems so to me. If the line were *qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDach'eghmoHQo'* it would seem to work just as well. Where is the line between a state of being and not a state of being? Or perhaps the negative *-Qo'* makes the rule not operative because you're not commanding a state of being (the negative *yIDachQo'* versus the positive *yISaH'eghmoH*)? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
'o SuStel you're good ! hahaha ! pIn'a'na' SoH ! reH qaHo'qu'.. qarurlaHchugh vaj jIQuchchoHchu' ! qunnoH ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 20 Oct 2016 6:43 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/20/2016 11:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
On 20 October 2016 at 17:12, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/20/2016 10:25 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDachQo' Don't miss this event! (WSC)
What is WSC?
It said right there in Voragh's mail!
P.S. WSC = Washington Shakespeare Company's "By Any Other Name: An Evening of Shakespeare in Klingon" (2010)
(Probably your mail software elided it, because it was under his signature.)
No, I just missed it.
This appears to be another exception to the general rule: "Generally, when a verb describing a state of being... is used in the imperative form, the suffixes -’egh (reflexive suffix) and -moH (“cause”) are used as well..."
While {Dach} is a "be something" verb, is it a "state of being"? It seems somehow different than verbs like {tuj} or {taD}.
Is "being absent" a state of being? Seems so to me. If the line were *qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDach'eghmoHQo'* it would seem to work just as well.
Where is the line between a state of being and not a state of being? Or perhaps the negative *-Qo'* makes the rule not operative because you're not commanding a state of being (the negative *yIDachQo'* versus the positive *yISaH'eghmoH*)?
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 20 October 2016 at 17:42, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/20/2016 11:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
On 20 October 2016 at 17:12, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: This appears to be another exception to the general rule: "Generally, when a verb describing a state of being... is used in the imperative form, the suffixes -’egh (reflexive suffix) and -moH (“cause”) are used as well..."
De'vID:
While {Dach} is a "be something" verb, is it a "state of being"? It seems somehow different than verbs like {tuj} or {taD}.
SuStel:
Is "being absent" a state of being? Seems so to me.
I agree that it is, but it's not as clear cut a case as something like "be hot". A state of being like being hot depends only on the subject, whereas something like "be absent" seems to be deictic, i.e., one can only be absent *from something else*. However, if someone said {yIHop'eghmoH}, I would easily understand that as a command to be far away *from the speaker*. And, clearly, in {qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDachQo'}, the being-absent is in reference to {wanI'}. SuStel:
If the line were qaStaHvIS wanI'vam yIDach'eghmoHQo' it would seem to work just as well.
I think that sentence has a slightly different meaning than what's intended, though. It means "Don't cause yourself to be absent", which misses the case where you might be absent through circumstances you didn't cause. What you really want is "Case yourself not to be absent", something like *{yIDachbe'eghmoH} (which is illegal because {-be'} doesn't work with imperatives). {yIDachQo'}, on the other hand, has the intended meaning.
Where is the line between a state of being and not a state of being? Or perhaps the negative -Qo' makes the rule not operative because you're not commanding a state of being (the negative yIDachQo' versus the positive yISaH'eghmoH)?
There are different negations of an imperative: don't do something, do the opposite-of-something, undo-something that was previously done. Perhaps {yIDach'eghmoHQo'}, {yIDachQo'}, and {yIDachHa'} cover these cases, respectively. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel