ok, listen. Recently, a little bird informed me of the tnk {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je}, for "cup and saucer". After I thanked the bird, feeding it a few 'Iw breadcrumbs, I begun to wonder.. Doesn't the {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je}, mean "tea, cup, and saucer" ? If the intention behind the obscure {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je} is to actually mean "tea (cup and saucer)", i.e. "(cup and saucer) of tea", then how the ghe''or can the {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je} be interpreted as {Dargh (HIvje' jengva' je)} ? I would expect for "tea cup and saucer" to be {Dargh HIvje' Dargh jengva' je}. ~ m. qunen'oS DeghwI', DIvI' vIghro' yIbuS. QuQ neH.
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 13:15 mayqel qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, listen.
Recently, a little bird informed me of the tnk {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je}, for "cup and saucer".
After I thanked the bird, feeding it a few 'Iw breadcrumbs, I begun to wonder..
Doesn't the {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je}, mean "tea, cup, and saucer" ?
In another context, it might. That's not what it means here, though.
If the intention behind the obscure {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je} is to
actually mean "tea (cup and saucer)", i.e. "(cup and saucer) of tea", then how the ghe''or can the {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je} be interpreted as {Dargh (HIvje' jengva' je)} ?
It's intended to be parsed as {(Dargh HIvje'), (jengva') je} "(tea)cup and saucer". I would expect for "tea cup and saucer" to be {Dargh HIvje' Dargh jengva'
je}.
That would be like saying "teacup and teasaucer", which is fine (if a little redundant). -- De'vID
On May 20, 2019, at 06:23, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I would expect for "tea cup and saucer" to be {Dargh HIvje' Dargh jengva' je}.
That would be like saying "teacup and teasaucer", which is fine (if a little redundant).
It also doesn’t prevent one from misreading it as “tea, cup, tea, and saucer”. Punctuation can help, although, as always, since it’s not required, one shouldn’t assume that an unpunctuated list be interpreted in any particular way: {Dargh HIvje', jengva' je} teacup and saucer {Dargh, HIvje', jengva' je} tea, cup, and saucer I like to joke that the Klingon version of the Oxford Comma can be used on a list with only two members. If you don’t mind the risk of sounding like someone from the upper social classes, or like you’re speaking in an old-fashioned manner, you could also always say {tu'lum jengva' je}
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 13:54 Daniel Dadap, <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On May 20, 2019, at 06:23, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I would expect for "tea cup and saucer" to be {Dargh HIvje' Dargh jengva'
je}.
That would be like saying "teacup and teasaucer", which is fine (if a little redundant).
It also doesn’t prevent one from misreading it as “tea, cup, tea, and saucer”.
It doesn't prevent someone from misreading it as "Teacup, tea, and saucer" or "Tea, cup, and teasaucer", but surely no one would read it in a way which puts two of the same item in the list.
On Mon, 20 May 2019 14:15:21 +0300 "mayqel qunen'oS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, listen.
Recently, a little bird informed me of the tnk {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je}, for "cup and saucer".
After I thanked the bird, feeding it a few 'Iw breadcrumbs, I begun to wonder..
Doesn't the {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je}, mean "tea, cup, and saucer" ?
If the intention behind the obscure {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je} is to actually mean "tea (cup and saucer)", i.e. "(cup and saucer) of tea", then how the ghe''or can the {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je} be interpreted as {Dargh (HIvje' jengva' je)} ?
I would expect for "tea cup and saucer" to be {Dargh HIvje' Dargh jengva' je}.
~ m. qunen'oS DeghwI', DIvI' vIghro' yIbuS. QuQ neH.
Punctuation aside, your English phrase has the same issue. If you wrote a story, in English, and used that phrase, how would we now what you mean? ...Same for Klingon. In spoken Klingon, just as with spoken English, you would most likely pause differently between the words to change the meaning. - DloraH
I can understand {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je}, meaning {(Dargh HIvje'), (jengva') je} "(tea)cup and saucer", if I take into account that the {Dargh HIvje'} was given as "teacup". So, the reader of could be expected to understand {(Dargh HIvje') jengva' je}. What I'm wondering though is this: Assume we have a N-N-N-N (quadruple noun construction); are *all* combinations possible ? i.e. (N-N)-N-N, N-(N-N)-N, N-N-(N-N), (N-N-N)-N, N-(N-N-N) ? Of course, I would never use something like that in a real text, but I would like to understand how this actually works. ~ m. qunen'oS where the federation cat goes we follow
On May 20, 2019, at 07:57, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
What I'm wondering though is this: Assume we have a N-N-N-N (quadruple noun construction); are *all* combinations possible ? i.e. (N-N)-N-N, N-(N-N)-N, N-N-(N-N), (N-N-N)-N, N-(N-N-N) ?
I don’t see why not. Context might make exclude some interpretations and common sense might make some more unlikely, but all of those should be possible, as well as (N-N)-(N-N). Even with something as simple as {Dargh HIvje' jengva' je} there are three grammatically possible meanings: Tea, Cup, and Saucer Tea-cup and Saucer Tea and Cup-saucer I think in a long list, commas or pauses in speech can be very helpful in breaking up possible noun-nouns within the list if there is a chance for them to cause confusion.
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 15:25 Daniel Dadap, <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On May 20, 2019, at 07:57, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
What I'm wondering though is this: Assume we have a N-N-N-N (quadruple noun construction); are *all* combinations possible ? i.e. (N-N)-N-N, N-(N-N)-N, N-N-(N-N), (N-N-N)-N, N-(N-N-N) ?
I don’t see why not. Context might make exclude some interpretations and common sense might make some more unlikely, but all of those should be possible, as well as (N-N)-(N-N).
As an example, consider {tlhIngan wo' Qang DevwI' je}. Sure, you *could* read this as "a Klingon, an empire, a Chancellor, and a leader", but I bet no one has any trouble parsing this as "Chancellor and Leader of the Klingon Empire". -- De'vID
I would tend to read it as “Leader, and Chancellor of the Klingon empire,” but reading your English translation, my natural inclination is to think “Chancellor … and Leader-of-the-Klingon-Empire.” I have to think it through to come up with “Leader-and-Chancellor of the Klingon Empire.” That interpretation comes later. In the interest of clarity, I modestly suggest that one might seek to consider alternative constructions when the whim strikes to pile more than two nouns next to each other. It’s not banned. There are no rules against it. It’s just that the grammar doesn’t offer much in the way of clarity to support a string of nouns that may be linked by conjunction and/or genitive/possessive relationships. But if you cherish ambiguity, go for it with gusto. Amuse yourself and others as you see fit. It is completely within your rights to do so. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 20, 2019, at 9:55 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 15:25 Daniel Dadap, <daniel@dadap.net <mailto:daniel@dadap.net>> wrote:
On May 20, 2019, at 07:57, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
What I'm wondering though is this: Assume we have a N-N-N-N (quadruple noun construction); are *all* combinations possible ? i.e. (N-N)-N-N, N-(N-N)-N, N-N-(N-N), (N-N-N)-N, N-(N-N-N) ?
I don’t see why not. Context might make exclude some interpretations and common sense might make some more unlikely, but all of those should be possible, as well as (N-N)-(N-N).
As an example, consider {tlhIngan wo' Qang DevwI' je}. Sure, you *could* read this as "a Klingon, an empire, a Chancellor, and a leader", but I bet no one has any trouble parsing this as "Chancellor and Leader of the Klingon Empire".
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Don’t we have some precedence for this in terms of names: {X Y puqloD Z tuq}, which follows the N-(N-N)-(N-N) format; however it may also be a stratified form, given how common it is. I think we can also use punctuation or emphasis (depending on speaking or writing) to help signal the correct parsing to avoid ambiguity. —jevreH Sent from my iPad
On May 20, 2019, at 11:50, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I would tend to read it as “Leader, and Chancellor of the Klingon empire,” but reading your English translation, my natural inclination is to think “Chancellor … and Leader-of-the-Klingon-Empire.” I have to think it through to come up with “Leader-and-Chancellor of the Klingon Empire.” That interpretation comes later.
In the interest of clarity, I modestly suggest that one might seek to consider alternative constructions when the whim strikes to pile more than two nouns next to each other. It’s not banned. There are no rules against it. It’s just that the grammar doesn’t offer much in the way of clarity to support a string of nouns that may be linked by conjunction and/or genitive/possessive relationships.
But if you cherish ambiguity, go for it with gusto. Amuse yourself and others as you see fit. It is completely within your rights to do so.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 20, 2019, at 9:55 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 15:25 Daniel Dadap, <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On May 20, 2019, at 07:57, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
What I'm wondering though is this: Assume we have a N-N-N-N (quadruple noun construction); are *all* combinations possible ? i.e. (N-N)-N-N, N-(N-N)-N, N-N-(N-N), (N-N-N)-N, N-(N-N-N) ?
I don’t see why not. Context might make exclude some interpretations and common sense might make some more unlikely, but all of those should be possible, as well as (N-N)-(N-N).
As an example, consider {tlhIngan wo' Qang DevwI' je}. Sure, you *could* read this as "a Klingon, an empire, a Chancellor, and a leader", but I bet no one has any trouble parsing this as "Chancellor and Leader of the Klingon Empire".
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ 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 Mon, May 20, 2019, 17:50 Will Martin, <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I would tend to read it as “Leader, and Chancellor of the Klingon empire,”
That's not a possible reading of {tlhIngan wo' Qang DevwI' je}. Did you mean it the other way around, i.e., "Chancellor of the Klingon Empire, and Leader"? but reading your English translation, my natural inclination is to think
“Chancellor … and Leader-of-the-Klingon-Empire.”
That's definitely impossible. The {DevwI'} is separated from {tlhIngan wo'} by {Qang}. I have to think it through to come up with “Leader-and-Chancellor of the
Klingon Empire.” That interpretation comes later.
If I described Gowron as {tlhIngan wo' Qang DevwI' je}, does it actually matter whether it means "Chancellor-of-the-Klingon-Empire and Leader" or "Chancellor-and-Leader of the Klingon Empire"? The only difference is whether his leadership of the Klingon Empire is implicit or explicit, but the resulting meaning is still the same. The reader or listener is presumed to know that the Chancellor is the Leader of the Klingon Empire. In the interest of clarity, I modestly suggest that one might seek to
consider alternative constructions when the whim strikes to pile more than two nouns next to each other. It’s not banned. There are no rules against it. It’s just that the grammar doesn’t offer much in the way of clarity to support a string of nouns that may be linked by conjunction and/or genitive/possessive relationships.
But if you cherish ambiguity, go for it with gusto. Amuse yourself and others as you see fit. It is completely within your rights to do so.
I don't cherish ambiguity, I just don't think there is any in the given phrase. I think one would have to go out of their way to be looking for ambiguity to find it there. In contrast, Lieven's example of {vav jup SoS HoD je} is unambiguously ambiguous. -- De'vID
Am 20.05.2019 um 14:57 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
What I'm wondering though is this: Assume we have a N-N-N-N (quadruple noun construction); are *all* combinations possible ? i.e. (N-N)-N-N, N-(N-N)-N, N-N-(N-N), (N-N-N)-N, N-(N-N-N) ?
Of course, I would never use something like that in a real text, but I would like to understand how this actually works.
A row of nouns can usually be translated as "Noun#(n) of Noun#(n-1)" and this may go very long. 3 or 4 nouns in a row even is nothing special, think of {tlhIngan wo' SuvwI'} or even {tlhIngan wo' DevwI' juH lojmIt} "The gate of the home of the leader of the empire of the Klingons" It would be strange if you wanted to think about what parts of this may have a different meaning and I can actually not think of anything that may have a different meaning. As someone else said already, punctuation may be helpful in long phrases, such as {muSuch vav jup, SoS HoD je.} = 2 people {muSuch vav, jup SoS, HoD je.} = 3 people {muSuch vav jup SoS, HoD je.} = 2 people {muSuch vav jup SoS HoD je.} = 4 people -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/NounNounConstruction
participants (7)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
DloraH -
Jeffrey Clark -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Will Martin