QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv! Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/ A small word of warning. The hotel reservation page currently automatically fills in the departure date as Saturday July 29, but if you don't want to miss any of the Saturday fun, you might want to change that to Sunday July 30. pa' SoHtaH pagh mayrI' SoHtaH!
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 9:19 AM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
A small word of warning. The hotel reservation page currently automatically fills in the departure date as Saturday July 29, but if you don't want to miss any of the Saturday fun, you might want to change that to Sunday July 30.
Likewise, if you're coming in on Wednesday (the better to start bright and early on Thursday!) you'll need to change your arrival date too. I've booked my room, how about you? -- Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen :: author :: publisher :: psychologist :: hypnotist :: klingonist :::: Campbell, Hugo, Nebula, & WSFS Award nominee ::::: Cóyotl Award winner :::: www.lawrencemschoen.com ::: www.papergolem.com ::: www.hypnosis4writers.com
jIjatlh: pa' SoHtaH pagh mayrI' SoHtaH! In my indecision over whether it was best to use the closer imitation of {pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH} or the more stylisticly Klingon {pa' SoHtaHbe'chuch vaj meyrI' SoHtaH}, I some how incorrectly spelled {meyrI'}. reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS.
Do'Ha', qaStaHvIS qep'a', qep loDnalwI' qorDu'. vaj, qep'a'Daq jImob. bID pa' jIje'chugh, latlh bID je' neH vay? I will be at qep'a' solo this year. Roommates anyone? be''etlh On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 9:19 AM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv!
Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/
A small word of warning. The hotel reservation page currently automatically fills in the departure date as Saturday July 29, but if you don't want to miss any of the Saturday fun, you might want to change that to Sunday July 30.
pa' SoHtaH pagh mayrI' SoHtaH!
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
wa' ben qep'a'Daq vIghoS 'ej pa' jup vInej. pa' jup vItu'ta'be', 'ach {AMAB} mu' vIQIjta'meH tlhIngan Hol vIlo'. 'e' vIHem. Do'Ha' tera' DISvam qep'a'Daq vIghoSlaHbe'. maDyarDaq jIH 'e' vIHar. -SapIr On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 12:21:52AM -0400, Elizabeth Faber wrote:
Do'Ha', qaStaHvIS qep'a', qep loDnalwI' qorDu'. vaj, qep'a'Daq jImob. bID pa' jIje'chugh, latlh bID je' neH vay?
I will be at qep'a' solo this year. Roommates anyone?
be''etlh
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 9:19 AM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv!
Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/
A small word of warning. The hotel reservation page currently automatically fills in the departure date as Saturday July 29, but if you don't want to miss any of the Saturday fun, you might want to change that to Sunday July 30.
pa' SoHtaH pagh mayrI' SoHtaH!
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
We will need a cool, fancy design for this year's shirt. If you are an artist and have an idea or would like to try to accomplish one of the ideas we already have, please contact me. Jeremy ________________________________ From: David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 8:19 AM To: TlhIngan Hol Mailing List Subject: qep'a' webpage QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv! Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/ A small word of warning. The hotel reservation page currently automatically fills in the departure date as Saturday July 29, but if you don't want to miss any of the Saturday fun, you might want to change that to Sunday July 30. pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
The hotel discount closes in 6 days and the membership discount closes in 4. If you haven't made all your plans yet, now is the time to finalize them. ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 8:19 AM To: TlhIngan Hol Mailing List Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv! Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/ pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
If you missed your chance to get a shirt, you can still attend the qep'a' at a discounted rate. Also, some attendees may still be looking for roommates, so feel free to post here to see if anyone is willing to share a room with you. ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 8:19 AM To: TlhIngan Hol Mailing List Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv! Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/ pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.
If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and the sentence refers to a single person, then.. shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a' Da'vemeH bInablaH} ? For "now, in order to travel at the qep'a' you are able to plan" ?
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
"there you are or a square you are being" ? qunnoq On 5 Jul 2017 6:21 pm, "David Holt" <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote: If you missed your chance to get a shirt, you can still attend the qep'a' at a discounted rate. Also, some attendees may still be looking for roommates, so feel free to post here to see if anyone is willing to share a room with you. ------------------------------ *From:* tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> *Sent:* Saturday, April 8, 2017 8:19 AM *To:* TlhIngan Hol Mailing List *Subject:* [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv! Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/ pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH! _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
"Be there or be square" is an idiomatic expression in American English, based on the fact that a "square" is a slang term for someone who is boring or set in their ways. be''etlh On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:19 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.
If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and the sentence refers to a single person, then..
shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a' Da'vemeH bInablaH} ?
For "now, in order to travel at the qep'a' you are able to plan" ?
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
"there you are or a square you are being" ?
qunnoq
On 5 Jul 2017 6:21 pm, "David Holt" <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
If you missed your chance to get a shirt, you can still attend the qep'a' at a discounted rate. Also, some attendees may still be looking for roommates, so feel free to post here to see if anyone is willing to share a room with you.
------------------------------ *From:* tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> *Sent:* Saturday, April 8, 2017 8:19 AM *To:* TlhIngan Hol Mailing List *Subject:* [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage
QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv!
Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ghel qunnoq:
> pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH! "there you are or a square you are being" ?
Am 05.07.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Elizabeth Faber:
"Be there or be square" is an idiomatic expression in American English,
Another example showing why one should avoid translating idioms literally. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
lieven:
Another example showing why one should avoid translating idioms literally.
hahaha ! believe it or not, this was EXACTLY my first thought, as soon as this phrase was translated on this thread. Translating idioms literally can severely confuse the reader. qunnoq On 6 Jul 2017 9:37 pm, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
ghel qunnoq:
> pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH! "there you are or a square you are being" ?
Am 05.07.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Elizabeth Faber:
"Be there or be square" is an idiomatic expression in American English,
Another example showing why one should avoid translating idioms literally.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ghItlh mayqel qunenoS:
DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.
If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and the sentence refers to a single person, then..
shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a' Da'vemeH bInablaH} ?
Since the {bo-} prefix is used on the main verb, the sentence is not referring to a single person. To be safe, this should be, {DaH qep'a'Daq bove'meH bonablaH}. The {-Daq} is actually optional and should not be a point of contention or argument. I believe that there are examples of {-meH} on a verb which does not appear to have a prefix and where a null prefix does not seem to make sense. It seems that {-meH} might actually be able to take a rare infinitive. I'm not very good a tracking canon examples, so I would love it if anyone could share a couple of them. But now that I'm examining it more closely, I'll bet none of those examples also have a object on the {-meH} verb. I probably took too many liberties in this translation.
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
"there you are or a square you are being" ? I see be''etlh has given you the English idiom. Without knowing the English idiom, I would probably translate the Klingon as, "Either you are there or you are a square." I was being silly and did knew that it was a nonsense thing to say in Klingon. I also knew the majority (but not all) of Klingon speakers would get the reference. Jeremy
On 7/5/2017 1:26 PM, David Holt wrote:
ghItlh mayqel qunenoS:
DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.
If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and the sentence refers to a single person, then..
shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a' Da'vemeH bInablaH} ?
Since the {bo-} prefix is used on the main verb, the sentence is not referring to a single person. To be safe, this should be, {DaH qep'a'Daq bove'meH bonablaH}. The {-Daq} is actually optional and should not be a point of contention or argument.
It's not that it's optional; it's that it's redundant. Let me use an example that makes it clear what is an object and what isn't (assuming *ve'* works like *jaH*). *jIH muve' */he travels to me /I am his destination. *jIH* is the object of *ve'.* *jIHDaq ve' */he travels on me /He's riding on my back, or something like that. The destination is unstated. You can tell that *jIHDaq* is not the object of *ve'* because the verb prefix agrees with /he/she/it/they/none./ *jIHDaq muve' */he travels to at-me; he travels to me-as-location /This is grammatical; you're just marking /me/ explicitly as a location. The verb prefix agrees with *jIHDaq* and shows that that's its object. But since *ve'* includes the notion that its object is a location, this is redundant. I have tried to reproduce its effect in the English translation above. The Klingon is more formally grammatically correct than the English. Unfortunately, the line from the movie is simply *jIve'.* We don't actually know whether it is a "verb of motion" or not. Since it is compared to *leng,* which is a verb of motion, my money is on *ve'* being one too. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel: *> jIHDaq ve'**> he travels on me*
He's riding on my back, or something like that. The destination is unstated. You can tell that *jIHDaq* is not the object of *ve'*because the verb prefix agrees with *he/she/it/they/none.*
I fail to see how the {jIHDaq ve'} produces the "he travels on me". According to the canon (or so I think) example of {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} for "I go in the river/I am moving along the river" (HQ 7.4, Dec 1998), whenever we have the {-Daq} with a verb of movement, which verb of movement has a verb prefix indicating no object, then the {-Daq} indicates the location where the going takes place. So, as I understand the example of {jIHDaq ve'} the meaning isn't "he travels (with a purpose) on me"; it is rather "he is traveling with a purpose in the vicinity of me". qunnoq On 5 Jul 2017 8:52 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/5/2017 1:26 PM, David Holt wrote:
ghItlh mayqel qunenoS:
DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.
If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and the sentence refers to a single person, then..
shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a' Da'vemeH bInablaH} ?
Since the {bo-} prefix is used on the main verb, the sentence is not referring to a single person. To be safe, this should be, {DaH qep'a'Daq bove'meH bonablaH}. The {-Daq} is actually optional and should not be a point of contention or argument.
It's not that it's optional; it's that it's redundant. Let me use an example that makes it clear what is an object and what isn't (assuming *ve'* works like *jaH*).
*jIH muve' * *he travels to me *I am his destination. *jIH* is the object of *ve'.*
*jIHDaq ve' * *he travels on me *He's riding on my back, or something like that. The destination is unstated. You can tell that *jIHDaq* is not the object of *ve'* because the verb prefix agrees with *he/she/it/they/none.*
*jIHDaq muve' * *he travels to at-me; he travels to me-as-location *This is grammatical; you're just marking *me* explicitly as a location. The verb prefix agrees with *jIHDaq* and shows that that's its object. But since *ve'* includes the notion that its object is a location, this is redundant. I have tried to reproduce its effect in the English translation above. The Klingon is more formally grammatically correct than the English.
Unfortunately, the line from the movie is simply *jIve'.* We don't actually know whether it is a "verb of motion" or not. Since it is compared to *leng,* which is a verb of motion, my money is on *ve'* being one too.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/5/2017 4:19 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel: *> jIHDaq ve' */> he travels on me/
He's riding on my back, or something like that. The destination is unstated. You can tell that *jIHDaq* is not the object of *ve'*because the verb prefix agrees with /he/she/it/they/none./ / / I fail to see how the {jIHDaq ve'} produces the "he travels on me". / /
According to the canon (or so I think) example of {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} for "I go in the river/I am moving along the river" (HQ 7.4, Dec 1998), whenever we have the {-Daq} with a verb of movement, which verb of movement has a verb prefix indicating no object, then the {-Daq} indicates the location where the going takes place.
So, as I understand the example of {jIHDaq ve'} the meaning isn't "he travels (with a purpose) on me"; it is rather "he is traveling with a purpose in the vicinity of me".
If you're riding me, then I am the location where the traveling takes place. But you're right; it could also mean the traveling takes place on my body. Maybe a Lilliputian is walking from my head to my feet for an important reason. *jIHDaq ve'.* But the locative doesn't necessarily say that I am traversed, only that I am a location associated with the action. I don't think Okrand was trying to distinguish between those two in that HolQeD interview. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH! "Be there, or be square!"
lay'tel SIvten On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:19 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.
If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and the sentence refers to a single person, then..
shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a' Da'vemeH bInablaH} ?
For "now, in order to travel at the qep'a' you are able to plan" ?
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
"there you are or a square you are being" ?
qunnoq
On 5 Jul 2017 6:21 pm, "David Holt" <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
If you missed your chance to get a shirt, you can still attend the qep'a' at a discounted rate. Also, some attendees may still be looking for roommates, so feel free to post here to see if anyone is willing to share a room with you.
------------------------------ *From:* tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> *Sent:* Saturday, April 8, 2017 8:19 AM *To:* TlhIngan Hol Mailing List *Subject:* [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage
QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv!
Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
SuStel:
Maybe a Lilliputian is walking from my head to my feet for an important reason
hahaha ! tlhaQqu'bej mIlloghvam ! lay'tel SIvten ('ej latlhpu')
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH! "Be there, or be square!"
I don't think that grammar-wise the {pa' SoHtaH} can stand for "be there !". Even if one speaks this phrase coloring his voice with an imperative tone, then again the meaning would be "you are there", with the context of "you are being there" (meaning I am making an observation that "you are there"). And all this with an imperative tone, which doesn't make much sense. If I was to translate the "be there !" in klingon, I would choose something like {pa' yISaH'eghmoH}. qunnoq On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:17 AM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH! "Be there, or be square!"
lay'tel SIvten
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:19 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.
If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and the sentence refers to a single person, then..
shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a' Da'vemeH bInablaH} ?
For "now, in order to travel at the qep'a' you are able to plan" ?
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
"there you are or a square you are being" ?
qunnoq
On 5 Jul 2017 6:21 pm, "David Holt" <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
If you missed your chance to get a shirt, you can still attend the qep'a' at a discounted rate. Also, some attendees may still be looking for roommates, so feel free to post here to see if anyone is willing to share a room with you.
________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 8:19 AM To: TlhIngan Hol Mailing List Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage
QaptaH qep'a' weQmoQnaQ tamey. DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH. SIbI' yImuv!
Get all the details, register, and make your hotel reservations at http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH!
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/6/2017 5:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
lay'tel SIvten ('ej latlhpu')
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH! "Be there, or be square!" I don't think that grammar-wise the {pa' SoHtaH} can stand for "be there !". Even if one speaks this phrase coloring his voice with an imperative tone, then again the meaning would be "you are there", with the context of "you are being there" (meaning I am making an observation that "you are there"). And all this with an imperative tone, which doesn't make much sense.
If I was to translate the "be there !" in klingon, I would choose something like {pa' yISaH'eghmoH}.
If I were to temporarily accept *meyrI'* as meaning the same thing as the obsolete English slang meaning of /square,/ I would pattern this utterance on existing Klingon: *pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj meyrI' SoH */if you are not there then you are a square/ Using *pa' bISaHbe'chugh* is also acceptable. If I were to look for an actual bit of Klingon slang, I might say one of these: *pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj bInatlh */if you are not there then you consume (reprehensible, disguisting, contemptible)/ *pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj Hom SoH */if you are not there then you are a bone (weakling, runt, scrawny one, skinny one)/ *pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj bolwI' SoH */if you are not there then you are a drooler (traitor)/ And so on. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
*pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj meyrI' SoH* *if you are not there then you are a square*
The placement of {-be'} confuses me. If we choose to place it after the {-taH} then doesn't the meaning become "If you aren't there continuously" ? Perhaps this is indeed the intented meaning, the speaker trying to say "if you aren't continuously there, then..". But wouldn't you accept, as a more literal way of saying "If you aren't there.." the {pa' SoHbe'taHchugh..} ? The only reasoning I see for placing the {-be'} after the {-taH}, is if we consider (because of the {pa'}) the {SoHtaH} as an "unable to be separated pair of words", thus leaving as an only option the placement of the {-be'} after it. qunnoq On 6 Jul 2017 4:48 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/6/2017 5:32 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
lay'tel SIvten ('ej latlhpu')
pa' SoHtaH pagh meyrI' SoHtaH! "Be there, or be square!"
I don't think that grammar-wise the {pa' SoHtaH} can stand for "be there !". Even if one speaks this phrase coloring his voice with an imperative tone, then again the meaning would be "you are there", with the context of "you are being there" (meaning I am making an observation that "you are there"). And all this with an imperative tone, which doesn't make much sense.
If I was to translate the "be there !" in klingon, I would choose something like {pa' yISaH'eghmoH}.
If I were to temporarily accept *meyrI'* as meaning the same thing as the obsolete English slang meaning of *square,* I would pattern this utterance on existing Klingon:
*pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj meyrI' SoH **if you are not there then you are a square*
Using *pa' bISaHbe'chugh* is also acceptable.
If I were to look for an actual bit of Klingon slang, I might say one of these:
*pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj bInatlh **if you are not there then you consume (reprehensible, disguisting, contemptible)*
*pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj Hom SoH **if you are not there then you are a bone (weakling, runt, scrawny one, skinny one)*
*pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj bolwI' SoH **if you are not there then you are a drooler (traitor)*
And so on.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/6/2017 11:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
*pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj meyrI' SoH* /if you are not there then you are a square/ / / The placement of {-be'} confuses me. If we choose to place it after the {-taH} then doesn't the meaning become "If you aren't there continuously" ?/ /
Perhaps this is indeed the intented meaning, the speaker trying to say "if you aren't continuously there, then..".
But wouldn't you accept, as a more literal way of saying "If you aren't there.." the {pa' SoHbe'taHchugh..} ?
The only reasoning I see for placing the {-be'} after the {-taH}, is if we consider (because of the {pa'}) the {SoHtaH} as an "unable to be separated pair of words", thus leaving as an only option the placement of the {-be'} after it.
Since we've gotten some examples of it, I believe *-be'* doesn't necessarily negate only the single, immediately preceding element, but it can refer to the entire preceding concept, especially for suffixes that aren't typically negated. So what I said was meant as *[SoHtaH]be'chugh* instead of *SoH[taH]be'chugh.* A canonical example of this is from /Power Klingon:/ *Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'*/if you don't eat everything you will die without honor./ Clearly, *-be'* here is referring to the entire phrase *batlh bIHegh* and not just the *Hegh.* Another example from /Conversational //Klingon/ is *vIta'pu'be'*/I didn't do it./ This doesn't mean I did it in a non-perfective way; the entire verb before the *-be'* is being negated as a unit. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj. Now, I understand your reasons for the specific placement of {-be'}. However let me ask you.. If instead of {SoHtaHbe'chugh} we wrote {SoHbe'taHchugh}, and if instead of {vIta'pu'be'} we wrote {vIta'be'pu'}.. 1. Would you accept these choices as equally correct ? 2. Meaning-wise, would you find that they are any different ? qunnoq On 6 Jul 2017 6:38 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: On 7/6/2017 11:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: SuStel:
*pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj meyrI' SoH* *if you are not there then you are a square*
The placement of {-be'} confuses me. If we choose to place it after the {-taH} then doesn't the meaning become "If you aren't there continuously" ? Perhaps this is indeed the intented meaning, the speaker trying to say "if you aren't continuously there, then..". But wouldn't you accept, as a more literal way of saying "If you aren't there.." the {pa' SoHbe'taHchugh..} ? The only reasoning I see for placing the {-be'} after the {-taH}, is if we consider (because of the {pa'}) the {SoHtaH} as an "unable to be separated pair of words", thus leaving as an only option the placement of the {-be'} after it. Since we've gotten some examples of it, I believe *-be'* doesn't necessarily negate only the single, immediately preceding element, but it can refer to the entire preceding concept, especially for suffixes that aren't typically negated. So what I said was meant as *[SoHtaH]be'chugh* instead of *SoH[taH]be'chugh.* A canonical example of this is from *Power Klingon:* *Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'** if you don't eat everything you will die without honor.* Clearly, *-be'* here is referring to the entire phrase *batlh bIHegh* and not just the *Hegh.* Another example from *Conversational **Klingon* is *vIta'pu'be'** I didn't do it.* This doesn't mean I did it in a non-perfective way; the entire verb before the *-be'* is being negated as a unit. -- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/6/2017 11:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If instead of {SoHtaHbe'chugh} we wrote {SoHbe'taHchugh}, and if instead of {vIta'pu'be'} we wrote {vIta'be'pu'}..
1. Would you accept these choices as equally correct ? 2. Meaning-wise, would you find that they are any different ?
I would accept them as grammatically valid but not necessarily identical in meaning. The example with *ta'* is easier, because it's an actual verb. *vIta'pu'be':* I didn't *ta'pu'. vIta'be'pu':* I did *ta'be'*. The former describes a thing I might have done and says it didn't happen; the latter describes a thing I DID do, which is the not-doing of something. The distinction is subtle, and in most cases it wouldn't make a difference which you used. The one with *SoH* is messier because pronouns only act like verbs when they interact with other words, and because it seems like *-taH* may be required when the pronoun is combined with a locative, but that isn't clear... If someone were to choose the other form than I did, I wouldn't have a problem, and I wouldn't even be sure there is a significant difference. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 11:57 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If instead of {SoHtaHbe'chugh} we wrote {SoHbe'taHchugh}, and if instead of {vIta'pu'be'} we wrote {vIta'be'pu'}..
1. Would you accept these choices as equally correct ? 2. Meaning-wise, would you find that they are any different ?
I would accept them as grammatically valid but not necessarily identical in meaning.
The example with *ta'* is easier, because it's an actual verb. *vIta'pu'be':* I didn't *ta'pu'. vIta'be'pu':* I did *ta'be'*. The former describes a thing I might have done and says it didn't happen; the latter describes a thing I DID do, which is the not-doing of something. The distinction is subtle, and in most cases it wouldn't make a difference which you used.
The one with *SoH* is messier because pronouns only act like verbs when they interact with other words, and because it seems like *-taH* may be required when the pronoun is combined with a locative, but that isn't clear... If someone were to choose the other form than I did, I wouldn't have a problem, and I wouldn't even be sure there is a significant difference.
Similar to the first example of 'not taking action' vs 'taking action to not do something', (putting aside that -taH might be required with locatives) I take [SoHtaHbe'] and [SoHbe'taH] as 'not being something' vs 'being not something'. Very subtle, probably no difference on the streets, but in a philosophy class, I would see a bit difference. - DloraH
ngIvtaHmo' 'avwI'pu', qachDaq ghaHbe'lI' nIHwI''e'. lojmIt ngaQHa'moHlaHbe', qachDaq ghaHlI'be' nIHwI''e'. tlhoy waghmo' DuSaQ, ghojwI' jIHpu'be'. qaStaHvIS wa' DIS jIlengtaHmo', ghojwI' jIHbe'pu'. ghojmoHwI'pu' vIvuvbe'mo', ghojwI' QaQ jIHbe'ta'. tlhoy jIroppu'mo', ghojwI' QaQ jIHta'be'. potlhqu' natlIS, teHqu'mo': qeyvaq ghotI' DaSopta'pa', puq SoHpu'be'pu'. ________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 01:13 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 11:57 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If instead of {SoHtaHbe'chugh} we wrote {SoHbe'taHchugh}, and if instead of {vIta'pu'be'} we wrote {vIta'be'pu'}..
1. Would you accept these choices as equally correct ? 2. Meaning-wise, would you find that they are any different ?
I would accept them as grammatically valid but not necessarily identical in meaning.
The example with *ta'* is easier, because it's an actual verb. *vIta'pu'be':* I didn't *ta'pu'. vIta'be'pu':* I did *ta'be'*. The former describes a thing I might have done and says it didn't happen; the latter describes a thing I DID do, which is the not-doing of something. The distinction is subtle, and in most cases it wouldn't make a difference which you used.
The one with *SoH* is messier because pronouns only act like verbs when they interact with other words, and because it seems like *-taH* may be required when the pronoun is combined with a locative, but that isn't clear... If someone were to choose the other form than I did, I wouldn't have a problem, and I wouldn't even be sure there is a significant difference.
Similar to the first example of 'not taking action' vs 'taking action to not do something', (putting aside that -taH might be required with locatives) I take [SoHtaHbe'] and [SoHbe'taH] as 'not being something' vs 'being not something'. Very subtle, probably no difference on the streets, but in a philosophy class, I would see a bit difference. - DloraH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jIHDaq ve' translating " jIHDaq ve'":- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ jIHDaq may mean:- - V:monitor* NS5:locative - P:[I|me] V:eavesdrop - P:[I|me] NS5:locative - N:[monitor_device%|viewing_screen] NS5:locative ve' may mean:- - V:travel_for
participants (11)
-
Anthony Appleyard -
David Holt -
DloraH -
Elizabeth Faber -
Felix Malmenbeck -
kechpaja -
Lawrence M. Schoen -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
MorphemeAddict -
SuStel