Me, E.T., Thiago and pay'qagh discussed the phase «jIH je» on in the car here at the qepHom'a' in Saarbücken the other day (we were on our way to the party on Friday). – One of them said this topic has been discussed at some earlier meeting (a qep'a'?). I tried to search old tlhingan-hol postings, but I couldn't find anything on the subject. I've heard lots of people use the phrase «jIH je» to mean “Me too” – as in, for example, in an exchange like: «juH qach vIghaj» (“I have a house.”) «jIH je» (“Me too”) or «vIraS vIjaH vIneH» (“I want to go to France.”) «jIH je» (“Me too”) But I started to wonder what's going on in these phrases. I figure «jIH je» are abbreviations of the longer phrases «juH qach vIghaj je (jIH)» and «vIraS vIjaH vIneH je (jIH)». And, maybe, since the pronoun «jIH» is the only thing verb-like in the sentence, it acts a verb in the shortened phase, and the «je» therefore comes after it. (Though, with that interpretation, «jIH je» sounds more like “I am too” to my ears – but I remember taking about this with someone [HoD Qanqor? Seqram? Qov?] at a qep'a' at some point and getting pushback. – So clearly other people think differently.) But, what if «jIH» isn't a verb at all in that sentence? (Is there a verb requirement in Klingon sentences? If a lone adverb can act as a sentence [given adequate context] then maybe a noun [or a pronoun functioning as a noun] can too?) If that's so, wouldn't it mean that the sentences «juH qach vIghaj je jIH» and «vIraS vIjaH vIneH je jIH» should rather be abbreviated as «je jIH» (retaining the word order of the longer sentence)? Or maybe the response could even abbreviated to just «je»? – Though I figure the pronoun is quite likely to be used for emphasis since that is new information the responder is wishing to convey. So, what do you think? Is «je jIH» better than «jIH je»? And what are you arguments for your belief? – Or should the phrase be avoided altogether and expressed some other way? How? /maHvatlh P.S. «je» is classified as a conjunction in TKD (even when used after a verb to mean «too») so it's not a given (at least to me) that it is grammatical to use on its own. This is different from how TKD talks about the, syntactically similar, «neH» “only” (which can also come after both nouns and verbs) in that «neH» is explicitly called an adverbial. (I take this to mean that «neH» on its own it a perfectly fine sentence – though the number of contexts in which it would make sense might be limited.)
On 11/20/2022 12:22 AM, zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
But I started to wonder what's going on in these phrases. I figure «jIH je» are abbreviations of the longer phrases «juH qach vIghaj je (jIH)» and «vIraS vIjaH vIneH je (jIH)». And, maybe, since the pronoun «jIH» is the only thing verb-like in the sentence, it acts a verb in the shortened phase, and the «je» therefore comes after it. (Though, with that interpretation, «jIH je» sounds more like “I am too” to my ears – but I remember taking about this with someone [HoD Qanqor? Seqram? Qov?] at a qep'a' at some point and getting pushback. – So clearly other people think differently.)
I know I have pushed back against it. *je* is a conjunction that follows /multiple/ nouns to conjoin them or a verb to impart an /also/ adverbial sense. But the *jIH* people use in *jIH je* isn't being used as a verb; it's being used as a noun, typically as a subject.
But, what if «jIH» isn't a verb at all in that sentence? (Is there a verb requirement in Klingon sentences? If a lone adverb can act as a sentence [given adequate context] then maybe a noun [or a pronoun functioning as a noun] can too?)
Is there a requirement that all utterances in Klingon be sentences? No. If I say *SSS!* at someone in Klingon, it is meaningful: it means I'm about to give a command or something is about to happen. But it's not a sentence.
If that's so, wouldn't it mean that the sentences «juH qach vIghaj je jIH» and «vIraS vIjaH vIneH je jIH» should rather be abbreviated as «je jIH» (retaining the word order of the longer sentence)?
Or maybe the response could even abbreviated to just «je»? – Though I figure the pronoun is quite likely to be used for emphasis since that is new information the responder is wishing to convey.
So, what do you think? Is «je jIH» better than «jIH je»? And what are you arguments for your belief? – Or should the phrase be avoided altogether and expressed some other way? How?
In my opinion, the Klingon equivalent to /me too/ is to repeat the verb in the first person and add a *je.* For example: Klingon 1: *romuluSnganpu' vImuS!* /I hate Romulans!/ Klingon 2: *vImuS je!* /Me too!/ Klingon 1: *SIbI' ruchbe'chugh chaH, jImej.*/If they don't get on with it right now, I'm leaving. /Klingon 2: *jImej je!* /Me too!/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 3:53 PM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 11/20/2022 12:22 AM, zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
So, what do you think? Is «je jIH» better than «jIH je»? And what are you arguments for your belief? – Or should the phrase be avoided altogether and expressed some other way? How?
{jIH je} strikes me as an Anglicism: an attempt to import a common English expression into Klingon by direct translation.
It might happen to work in some situations, like: Person 1: tlhIngan jIH. Person 2: [tlhIngan] jIH je. I would see a response like the above as an elision of the word {tlhIngan} based on context. However, I don't think it works in a situation like this: Person 1: jIDoy'. Person 2: jIH je.* {je jIH} strikes me as just wrong.
In my opinion, the Klingon equivalent to *me too* is to repeat the verb in the first person and add a *je.* For example:
Klingon 1: *romuluSnganpu' vImuS!* *I hate Romulans!* Klingon 2: *vImuS je!* *Me too!*
Klingon 1: *SIbI' ruchbe'chugh chaH, jImej.* * If they don't get on with it right now, I'm leaving. *Klingon 2: *jImej je!* *Me too!*
That's also my perception. This is partly informed by the joke from Power Klingon: 'avwI'vaD jatlh qama'; jIghung. jang 'avwI'; jIghung je. jatlh qama'; jI'oj. jang 'avwI'; jI'oj je. jatlh qama'; jIDoy'qu'. jatlh 'avwI'; jIDoy'be'. -- De'vID
I think this falls into the pit of things we can’t be sure about. Basically, we ask ourselves four questions: 1. Do we know that it’s right to use {jIH je} when we mean to add first person singular to the subject of what someone else just said? Answer: No. 2. Do we know that it’s wrong? Answer: No. 3. Would a human speaking Klingon with the language resources we now have understand you if you said this? Answer: Yes. 4. Would a Klingon in the Star Trek Universe think you were misspeaking if you said this? Answer: We have no idea. If this happened in casual conversation among us, I think it’s forgivable. If you really care about what has been vetted as canon, this is probably not a good utterance. As pointed out, the joke canon suggests that, as is often the case, in Klingon, the verb is core to Klingon expression, and if you want to add “Me, too” to a verb other than “to be”, you probably need to repeat the verb that the speaker uttered. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:36 AM, De'vID via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 3:53 PM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org>> wrote:
On 11/20/2022 12:22 AM, zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
So, what do you think? Is «je jIH» better than «jIH je»? And what are you arguments for your belief? – Or should the phrase be avoided altogether and expressed some other way? How? {jIH je} strikes me as an Anglicism: an attempt to import a common English expression into Klingon by direct translation.
It might happen to work in some situations, like:
Person 1: tlhIngan jIH. Person 2: [tlhIngan] jIH je.
I would see a response like the above as an elision of the word {tlhIngan} based on context.
However, I don't think it works in a situation like this:
Person 1: jIDoy'. Person 2: jIH je.*
{je jIH} strikes me as just wrong.
In my opinion, the Klingon equivalent to me too is to repeat the verb in the first person and add a je. For example:
Klingon 1: romuluSnganpu' vImuS! I hate Romulans! Klingon 2: vImuS je! Me too!
Klingon 1: SIbI' ruchbe'chugh chaH, jImej. If they don't get on with it right now, I'm leaving. Klingon 2: jImej je! Me too!
That's also my perception. This is partly informed by the joke from Power Klingon:
'avwI'vaD jatlh qama'; jIghung. jang 'avwI'; jIghung je. jatlh qama'; jI'oj. jang 'avwI'; jI'oj je. jatlh qama'; jIDoy'qu'. jatlh 'avwI'; jIDoy'be'.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/21/2022 2:22 PM, Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
3. Would a human speaking Klingon with the language resources we now have understand you if you said this? Answer: Yes.
More specifically, "Would a native English speaker speaking Klingon with the language resources we now have understand you if you said this?" Answer: Yes. Why? Because *jIH je* is just the word for /me/ followed by the word for /too./ Because let's face it: when one of us says *jIH je,* they're not thinking "I'm adding myself to the end of the previous speaker's subject and following it with a conjunction to make it seem like a natural continuation of the subject." They're thinking "*jIH* is /me/ and *je* is /too,/ so *jIH je* is /me too./" Any other explanation is just an attempt to retroactively explain away this habit. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I’m reminded of the old joke: 'avwI'vaD jatlh qama' «jIghung» jang 'avwI' «jIghung je» jatlh qama' «jI'oj» jang 'avwI' «jI'oj je» jatlh qama' «jIDoy'qu'» jatlh 'avwI' «jIDoy'be'!» A prisoner says to the guard, "I am hungry." The guard replies, "I am also hungry." The prisoner says, "I am thirsty." The guard replies, "I am also thirsty." The prisoner says, "I am very tired." The guard says, "I am not tired!" [PK] To help learners understand the grammar, Okrand’s translation was literal and somewhat formal. There’s no reason you couldn’t render the guard’s replies more colloquially as “Me too” or “I am too” and “Not me!” or “I’m not!” (We’ve seen other instances where Klingon sometimes repeats a verb or noun where an English speaker would omit them.) Voragh __________________________________________________________________ From: SuStel In my opinion, the Klingon equivalent to me too is to repeat the verb in the first person and add a je. For example: Klingon 1: romuluSnganpu' vImuS! I hate Romulans! Klingon 2: vImuS je! Me too! Klingon 1: SIbI' ruchbe'chugh chaH, jImej. If they don't get on with it right now, I'm leaving. Klingon 2: jImej je! Me too!
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 3:53 PM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 11/20/2022 12:22 AM, zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
Or maybe the response could even abbreviated to just «je»? – Though I figure the pronoun is quite likely to be used for emphasis since that is new information the responder is wishing to convey.
So, what do you think? Is «je jIH» better than «jIH je»? And what are you arguments for your belief? – Or should the phrase be avoided altogether and expressed some other way? How?
In my opinion, the Klingon equivalent to *me too* is to repeat the verb in the first person and add a *je.* For example:
Klingon 1: *romuluSnganpu' vImuS!* *I hate Romulans!* Klingon 2: *vImuS je!* *Me too!*
Klingon 1: *SIbI' ruchbe'chugh chaH, jImej.* * If they don't get on with it right now, I'm leaving. *Klingon 2: *jImej je!* *Me too!*
I really like this approach. :) Though it makes me think that Klingon 2 might abbreviate even more and just say «je» alone (skipping the verb altogether). – This is a common practice in (at least Swedish) sign language, though it seems a bit weird from an English speaker's perspective. Do you think that you (prior to this discussion) would've understood if just a naked «je» was used? Or is that to abbreviate too much? Klingon 1: *romuluSnganpu' vImuS!* *I hate Romulans!* *Klingon 2: je! Me too!* If the above is intelligible, it might only be so because the verb prefix is unchanged, so that if the verb needs a prefix change between the two statements, the whole verb would need to be repeated: Klingon 1: *romuluSnganpu' muS!* *She/he hates Romulans!* *Klingon 2: vImuS je! Me too!* /zrajm
On 11/22/2022 8:19 AM, zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
Though it makes me think that Klingon 2 might abbreviate even more and just say «je» alone (skipping the verb altogether). – This is a common practice in (at least Swedish) sign language, though it seems a bit weird from an English speaker's perspective.
Do you think that you (prior to this discussion) would've understood if just a naked «je» was used? Or is that to abbreviate too much?
I'd have understood, but just understanding doesn't count for much. If in English I said things like "I want pizza" and "I think that was very nice," and someone with me kept saying "Also!" right after me, I'd get it. That doesn't mean they're using the language correctly. I've been studying Welsh for a while. Welsh has a gazillion ways to say /yes/ or /no,/ and you have to pick the right one for the right circumstance. If someone asked me /Wyt ti'n hoffi cwrw?/ ("Do you like beer?") and I answered /Naddo/ ("No" about a past-tense action) instead of /Nac ydw/ (literally "I am not"), I would have used the language incorrectly but I daresay I would be understood. I'd just sound like an idiot. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Adding my 2 darseks to the discussion: I've been saying *jIrap* for ‘Me too’, if context allows it. — *André* aka *Vortarulo* aka *Dr. Müller* ;) Am Di., 22. Nov. 2022 um 17:32 Uhr schrieb Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org>:
In American Sign Language, they frequently sign “Same” with a “Y” hand shape (pinky and thumb extended from a fist), waving the hand between pointing the pinky at the other person and the thumb at the signer’s chest, with a facial expression appropriate to the subtleties of the specific comment.
They don’t seem to get tired of it, since in addition to saying, “Me, too” it has an emotional sense of common identification. “I feel that same thing,” or “I feel the same way,” added to the “Been there, done that,” or “I want to do that, too.”
On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:17 AM, SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 11/22/2022 8:19 AM, zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
Though it makes me think that Klingon 2 might abbreviate even more and just say «je» alone (skipping the verb altogether). – This is a common practice in (at least Swedish) sign language, though it seems a bit weird from an English speaker's perspective.
Do you think that you (prior to this discussion) would've understood if just a naked «je» was used? Or is that to abbreviate too much?
I'd have understood, but just understanding doesn't count for much. If in English I said things like "I want pizza" and "I think that was very nice," and someone with me kept saying "Also!" right after me, I'd get it. That doesn't mean they're using the language correctly.
I've been studying Welsh for a while. Welsh has a gazillion ways to say *yes* or *no,* and you have to pick the right one for the right circumstance. If someone asked me *Wyt ti'n hoffi cwrw?* ("Do you like beer?") and I answered *Naddo* ("No" about a past-tense action) instead of *Nac ydw* (literally "I am not"), I would have used the language incorrectly but I daresay I would be understood. I'd just sound like an idiot.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ 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 Nov 22, 2022, at 2:38 PM, André Müller via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
Adding my 2 darseks to the discussion: I've been saying jIrap for ‘Me too’, if context allows it.
In the 'Iv ghaH baHwI' skit, one player says «marap!» It isn’t intended as me too, though. The original English is a terse “Same as you!” when both players have answered a particular question identically. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 5:32 PM Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
In American Sign Language, they frequently sign “Same” with a “Y” hand shape (pinky and thumb extended from a fist), waving the hand between pointing the pinky at the other person and the thumb at the signer’s chest, with a facial expression appropriate to the subtleties of the specific comment.
They don’t seem to get tired of it, since in addition to saying, “Me, too” it has an emotional sense of common identification. “I feel that same thing,” or “I feel the same way,” added to the “Been there, done that,” or “I want to do that, too.”
That's very similar to the meaning of the Swedish sign I was thinking of, though in Swedish it is signed using the "V" hand with a downward striking motion. And the sign is usually glossed as SAMMA (ie. "the same") in spoken Swedish. Video of the sign: https://teckensprakslexikon.su.se/ord/04264 /maHvatlh
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 3:17 PM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 11/22/2022 8:19 AM, zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
Though it makes me think that Klingon 2 might abbreviate even more and just say «je» alone (skipping the verb altogether). – This is a common practice in (at least Swedish) sign language, though it seems a bit weird from an English speaker's perspective.
Do you think that you (prior to this discussion) would've understood if just a naked «je» was used? Or is that to abbreviate too much?
I'd have understood, but just understanding doesn't count for much. If in English I said things like "I want pizza" and "I think that was very nice," and someone with me kept saying "Also!" right after me, I'd get it. That doesn't mean they're using the language correctly.
Weell, from my point of view, being understood is kinda the whole point – or, at least, the Most Important point. :) – Though on the whole I'm more interested in whether people in general would understand, rather than whether or not any one single individual would. (Making the fact that you'd understand an important datapoint, if not the whole picture.) I've been studying Welsh for a while. Welsh has a gazillion ways to say
*yes* or *no,* and you have to pick the right one for the right circumstance. If someone asked me *Wyt ti'n hoffi cwrw?* ("Do you like beer?") and I answered *Naddo* ("No" about a past-tense action) instead of *Nac ydw* (literally "I am not"), I would have used the language incorrectly but I daresay I would be understood. I'd just sound like an idiot.
You're right though, I might sound like an idiot. But maybe we all do when we speak Klingon? It's hard to tell what a Real Klingon would think (but It Is interesting to think about). In a way, since Klingon isn't as thoroughly documented as Welsh, we might have more leeway for making up our own styles of speaking. Though I think the primary purpose of language is communication, and given that, one can't really completely veer off the path that is the known grammar/lexikon. But small scale experimentation (esp. where its not contradicted by canon)? I think that's pretty cool! (And normal for any language.) But even when I'm experimenting I'm interested in whether I would be understood or not. :) /zrajm (aka maHvatlh)
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 2:39 AM zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 3:17 PM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
I've been studying Welsh for a while. Welsh has a gazillion ways to say *yes* or *no,* and you have to pick the right one for the right circumstance. If someone asked me *Wyt ti'n hoffi cwrw?* ("Do you like beer?") and I answered *Naddo* ("No" about a past-tense action) instead of *Nac ydw* (literally "I am not"), I would have used the language incorrectly but I daresay I would be understood. I'd just sound like an idiot.
You're right though, I might sound like an idiot. But maybe we all do when we speak Klingon? It's hard to tell what a Real Klingon would think (but It Is interesting to think about).
"Although a good many of the fine points are not covered, the sketch will allow the student of Klingon to figure out what a Klingon is saying and to respond in an intelligible, though somewhat brutish, manner. Most Klingons will never know the difference." — The Klingon Dictionary -- De'vID
On 11/22/2022 8:38 PM, zrajm wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 3:17 PM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 11/22/2022 8:19 AM, zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
Though it makes me think that Klingon 2 might abbreviate even more and just say «je» alone (skipping the verb altogether). – This is a common practice in (at least Swedish) sign language, though it seems a bit weird from an English speaker's perspective.
Do you think that you (prior to this discussion) would've understood if just a naked «je» was used? Or is that to abbreviate too much?
I'd have understood, but just understanding doesn't count for much. If in English I said things like "I want pizza" and "I think that was very nice," and someone with me kept saying "Also!" right after me, I'd get it. That doesn't mean they're using the language correctly.
Weell, from my point of view, being understood is kinda the whole point – or, at least, the Most Important point. :)
If tru, y we no talk like this? U no wut me saying, but we no talk this way. Y? Because being understood is about more than just being able to piece together what the other person is trying to express. Language is a group of conventions that two communicators have in common. It is shared culture. Convention and redundancy are an essential part of language.
– Though on the whole I'm more interested in whether people in general would understand, rather than whether or not any one single individual would. (Making the fact that you'd understand an important datapoint, if not the whole picture.)
I daresay most people would understand my first paragraph above, but that still doesn't make it right.
I've been studying Welsh for a while. Welsh has a gazillion ways to say /yes/ or /no,/ and you have to pick the right one for the right circumstance. If someone asked me /Wyt ti'n hoffi cwrw?/ ("Do you like beer?") and I answered /Naddo/ ("No" about a past-tense action) instead of /Nac ydw/ (literally "I am not"), I would have used the language incorrectly but I daresay I would be understood. I'd just sound like an idiot.
You're right though, I might sound like an idiot. But maybe we all do when we speak Klingon? It's hard to tell what a Real Klingon would think (but It Is interesting to think about).
It's what we should strive for. If we just blithely accept *jIH je* or even just *je* as /me too,/ we are saying "I don't care about the idea that Klingon is set up to resemble a natural language with a fictional culture behind it." You might as well chuck /Klingon for the Galactic Traveler/ out the window if you feel that way, and I should have listened to all those people who sneer, "Why don't you learn a /useful/ language?"
In a way, since Klingon isn't as thoroughly documented as Welsh, we might have more leeway for making up our own styles of speaking.
A lack of documentation means you don't know the correct answer, not that you can make up an answer to suit yourself. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 3:19 PM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 11/22/2022 8:38 PM, zrajm wrote:
Weell, from my point of view, being understood is kinda the whole point – or, at least, the Most Important point. :)
If tru, y we no talk like this? U no wut me saying, but we no talk this way. Y?
This is in fact how some people talk (or, well, write). Have you never been to the Internet? ;-)
Because being understood is about more than just being able to piece together what the other person is trying to express. Language is a group of conventions that two communicators have in common. It is shared culture. Convention and redundancy are an essential part of language.
We don't know much about different registers of Klingon language outside of the "Language Change and Staying Current" section of KGT, but it's not inconceivable that Klingon teens write in such a sloppy manner on their intergalactic chat apps. Of course, that's not a style the KLI wishes to encourage. -- De'vID
I always think of *jIH je* as being tacked on to the end of what someone else just said. *je* is just acting normally as a noun conjunction. It adds the person speaking to the subject of the sentence. That sometimes breaks the rule of *rom* by turning the original subject into a plural first person subject, or ends up with a redundant *maH jIH je*. It sometimes tries to conjoin an explicit *jIH* with an elided subject, which is bizarre. But ignoring the potentially wrong verb prefix and/or the unspoken first noun, I don't see anything wrong with the order of the words themselves. -- ghunchu'wI' On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 12:23 AM zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
I've heard lots of people use the phrase «jIH je» to mean “Me too”...But I started to wonder what's going on in these phrases.
How about using «'ej» with the jIH-form of the previous verb? «juH qach vIghaj» (“I have a house.”) «'ej vIghaj» (“Me too”) or «vIraS vIjaH vIneH» (“I want to go to France.”) «'ej vIneH» (“Me too”) lay'tel SIvten On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 11:23 PM zrajm via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
Me, E.T., Thiago and pay'qagh discussed the phase «jIH je» on in the car here at the qepHom'a' in Saarbücken the other day (we were on our way to the party on Friday). – One of them said this topic has been discussed at some earlier meeting (a qep'a'?). I tried to search old tlhingan-hol postings, but I couldn't find anything on the subject.
I've heard lots of people use the phrase «jIH je» to mean “Me too” – as in, for example, in an exchange like:
«juH qach vIghaj» (“I have a house.”) «jIH je» (“Me too”)
or
«vIraS vIjaH vIneH» (“I want to go to France.”) «jIH je» (“Me too”)
But I started to wonder what's going on in these phrases. I figure «jIH je» are abbreviations of the longer phrases «juH qach vIghaj je (jIH)» and «vIraS vIjaH vIneH je (jIH)». And, maybe, since the pronoun «jIH» is the only thing verb-like in the sentence, it acts a verb in the shortened phase, and the «je» therefore comes after it. (Though, with that interpretation, «jIH je» sounds more like “I am too” to my ears – but I remember taking about this with someone [HoD Qanqor? Seqram? Qov?] at a qep'a' at some point and getting pushback. – So clearly other people think differently.)
But, what if «jIH» isn't a verb at all in that sentence? (Is there a verb requirement in Klingon sentences? If a lone adverb can act as a sentence [given adequate context] then maybe a noun [or a pronoun functioning as a noun] can too?) If that's so, wouldn't it mean that the sentences «juH qach vIghaj je jIH» and «vIraS vIjaH vIneH je jIH» should rather be abbreviated as «je jIH» (retaining the word order of the longer sentence)?
Or maybe the response could even abbreviated to just «je»? – Though I figure the pronoun is quite likely to be used for emphasis since that is new information the responder is wishing to convey.
So, what do you think? Is «je jIH» better than «jIH je»? And what are you arguments for your belief? – Or should the phrase be avoided altogether and expressed some other way? How?
/maHvatlh
P.S. «je» is classified as a conjunction in TKD (even when used after a verb to mean «too») so it's not a given (at least to me) that it is grammatical to use on its own.
This is different from how TKD talks about the, syntactically similar, «neH» “only” (which can also come after both nouns and verbs) in that «neH» is explicitly called an adverbial. (I take this to mean that «neH» on its own it a perfectly fine sentence – though the number of contexts in which it would make sense might be limited.) _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 2:30 PM MorphemeAddict via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
How about using «'ej» with the jIH-form of the previous verb?
«juH qach vIghaj» (“I have a house.”) «'ej vIghaj» (“Me too”)
I don't think that works. Without the {je}, it feels like an object is missing. For example, I would accept the following: {juH qach vIghaj} "I have a house" {'ej jem'IH vIghaj} "and I have a castle" Without the object, {'ej vIghaj} sounds like "and I have it", but what is "it"? It sounds like the speaker is claiming to also own the same building.
«vIraS vIjaH vIneH» (“I want to go to France.”) «'ej vIneH» (“Me too”)
Whether it's {'ej vIneH} or {vIneH je}, I'd interpret that as the speaker wishing the other person to go to France: {vIraS vIjaH vIneH} "I want to go to France" {'ej vIneH} "and I want it" / {vIneH je} "I want it too", i.e., "I also want *you* to go to France". -- De'vID
participants (9)
-
Alan Anderson -
André Müller -
De'vID -
MorphemeAddict -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin -
Will Martin -
zrajm